Do tell. Do you even know what the B1G looks for?

Not ISU

You still haven't answered the question I've asked you twice: how are funds for research acquired?

Meanwhile, you're talking in circles and conflating points.

My point about the CIC and the tangible draw for schools affiliated with it stands on its own.

GOV grants I think

I would put ISU on par with KSU; these are very comparable institutions.

Yes, but does ISU have a brand new billion dollar grant? Also, it isn't just about arbitrary college rankings, its also about brand recognition once you get past the relatively same athletics profile. You have to have something to sell, that's why these conferences have all this money to hand out. ISU has some of the best fans in the world, but the Cyclone brand just isn't that strong. Whether football or basketball, who gets excited to hear "the Cyclones are coming to town?"

That's correct. Most grants are Federal grants. Almost all medical breakthroughs are done by universities through Federal research grants. The drug companies just capitalize on it. Federal Grant money is the true lifeblood of the top academic research schools. It dwarfs anything State BOR or sports affiliations give it.

I'm not saying Pitt and Syracuse aren't more desirable, I am saying that the lack of public talk out of a school is irrelevant, since there is almost never a good reason to reveal what you are doing and plenty of reasons not to.

Do what? I thought this wasn't happening AlwaysWrongenson.

I'll buy that. Let me just say this, then. The KU statements about these realignments has been very low key and confident that KU will be OK when its all over. Maybe that's just painting a "brave face", but KSU and MU have basically taken the same stance, giving the "we hope the Big XII stays together, that is the best option" speech.

And when all of the dust settles, that's why academics have nothing to do with conference realignment.

Sure, certain universities want to align themselves with strong academic institutions to increase perceived reputation of their own institutions, and the CIC presents an economic and (tangible) academic advantage for schools in the Big 10.

Beyond this, grant money and state appropriations will not change, which points us to the real prime mover in all of this. See: Nebraska.

Football I think :D

B1G looks at national branding first and foremost. That is why Nebraska got in. That is why B1G is waiting to see what ND and/or Texas wants to do. ISU has no national branding at all. They have been bottom feeders of the Big 12, and are an after thought in their own state. Academics are down on the list of priorities, but I would say that it appears the B1G puts some thought into it, moreso than other conferences. Mizzou's combination of a growing success in football, along with strong academics, puts it ahead of KU, KSU, ISU. KU stature in basketball is what places it ahead of KSU and ISU. Like others have said, I think KSU and ISU are similar institutions. Iowa does not care about ISU, however the KU may or may not help KSU when push comes to shove. No one knows what is going to happen, we are all pulling theories out of our asses at this point. But to think that ISU is the best candidate for the B1G is just foolish.

I think NU was a "brand name" grab, and at the time, was AAU rated. I don't pretend to know the motivations of each conference. I don't think the motivations can necessarily be boiled down to one common motivation. In the SEC, its obviously football. In the ACC, it appears to be academic standing, location, and basketball. In the PAC, its about TV market share because the availability of schools is limited by geography.

The B1G strikes me as the classic big academics/big athletics college fraternity. I think academic standing standing or perception does matter to them. Of all the conferences, I also think tradition matters the most to them, and that is why long time rivals like MU, KSU, KU and NU have sentimental value. Why continuing MU versus Illinois is a good thing. That "midwest people" have a lot in common. I don't think the B1G just tosses those things out in consideration, otherwise, I think they would have went after FSU and Texas even harder.

Well said. I agree with all of this.

Very good way of putting it. B1G does value tradition and at least the perception of academic standing.

Part of me still hopes the B1G invites Mizzou, but I am not holding out hope. Anything seems possible at this point.

I'm not talking in circles. I'm pointing out how you have moved so far away from the original comment and point. But whatever.

And Faculty and PhD students at various universities submit for NSF and other grants.

Vast majority. Some Universities and departments/programs are getting better at corporate sponsored research, but very little basic research is funded by corporations. There's rarely an economic return on basic research soon enough to make it of interest to corporations.

What was once 95% state funding at the UA is now 10-15%. Tuition and Research funding are the lifeblood of a research university.

Heh in computers almost no one in industry funds research at academia with the intent to get anything back from academia. Generally speaking academia is 3-5 years behind industry. Industry funds academia to get recruiting access to students for recruiting. Most big money still comes from NSF/Darpa to my knowledge.

:Lin:

Here was the original point, Jaz, and it remains accurate. The Big 10 didn't seek out Nebraska because of its stellar academic reputation. The conference added this school because of its behemoth football program, which is a revenue-generating machine. Regional exposure, opening new markets, etc...revenue is the common denominator.

Then you started talking about a school's overall operating budget, which is primarily driven by tuition, state appropriations, and grants. None of which have much to do with conference realignment. Tuition perhaps could enter the debate if a few additions would then increase the marketability and brand of a conference (individual school) enough to drive up enrollment.

Solid academic conferences have added lesser academic institutions over the past 12 months. Why? Pretty simple answer.

Finally, it's not just doctoral students who can apply for research funding, as you surely know, but I understand that you're at a point in your life that this is your primary focus (based on your initial fiscal analysis of a university, which seems to have been a point of discussion in Intro. to Grad. Studies at the southwest branch of KU--read U of A--, and your final post to me).

Most research universities aren't heavy into computer/technology research, its mostly bio/medical. Almost all innovation in the health related industry comes from universities, not industry.

Either way...with the addition of Cuse, Pitt, UConn, and most likely Rutgers, the ACC has the top academic conference. This is exciting for the ACC. They beat the SEC and Big East to the punch.

So ND has said they would not join a conference unless there is a "seismic shift" in the conference landscape.

Does Syracuse and Pitt qualify? What about UConn and Rutgers potentially going to the ACC with them, and WVU going to the SEC?

That would eliminate many of the best universities in the Big East, greatly impacting the prestige of the conference for ND's non-football sports. Would this be enough of a catalyst to get ND to finally join a conference (B1G most likely)?

If ND finally bites the bullet, I can definitely see a scenario where both Mizzou and ku (maybe along with Rutgers) ride in with them to the Big Ten. But I don't see B1G expanding at all if they don't get a big dog - ND or UT - with it.

In the short term, academia can't compete with in-house design teams. That's not the point, and it's not designed to work that way. Academia, even in CS and MIS (my department), we conduct basic research. We provide the tools and understanding that companies use to inform their next level of applications.

I happen to be in a program that commercializes IT research better than many others. Just had one of our top professors have his 8 year old "startup" acquired for the 2nd time. This time by IBM for $1/2 a billion dollars. The research began with DARPA and similar funding and the publications.

But companies typically will license this research after it's done. Not fund it before it gets started.

No, here's the original point and posts.


You said about my original post "this is complete bullshit".

You based your sweepingly wrong statement on the baseless fact that you just don't believe that anyone at the league office was talking about Rice as a +1 to Texas because of the academics and the Houston market.

You subsequently completely twisted the facts to make an ignorant argument based on your assumption that acadmics play no role in the decision making of an athletic conference.

You then went on to completely contradict your original sweepingly wrong statement by agreeing with HH, and I quote:


You are wrong in one or the other of your statements. Either for some conferences it's about money AND academics... or it's about money, nothing more and nothing less.

You don't get to have it both ways just because you want to feel right.

And NONE of that changes the fact that the vast majority of the information I shared in my original post, which you called "complete BS", has since come out and been confirmed if not yet proven true.

And you have no way of knowing if Rice was being discussed by people at the league office, but given that my source seems to have been completely correct at this point, I am certain that it was discussed.

I am also now certain about what I initially just assumed. You didn't know what you are talking about when you called the whole post "complete BS".

What I don't understand is why you can't seem accept that you were almost certainly wrong. It's not like you are expected to know the discussions going on in the Pac-12 offices. Or expected to know how important academics and research funding are these days to both the funding and the branding of certain conferences. Or expected to believe some unconfirmed rumor posted and reposted on the internet.

It's perfectly reasonable to have assumed it was BS then.

But it's not so reasonable now.

Teams leave and join conferences all the time.

Conferences merge all the time.

It's the idea of Kansas or Missouri joining a conf where they are forced to fly all their teams to coasts to play all the time to play.

That is my stance, always has been.

That being said I don't get why the Big 12 wouldn't just stay together.

OU made pretty good work of the ACC "power" this weekend.

Why let anyone push you around? Doesn't make sense.

Absolutely miserably bad leadership.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Gabe Dearmond is reporting that Mizzou has held discussions with every other BCS conference. Storm's a-brewin' IMO.

Ugh, the Pitt, syracuse, and uconn news is a kick in the nuts for TCU. I have no idea of where we'll land but at least I know Chris del Conte is working to get TCU the best outcome.

I'm leaning more and more your direction every day.

The Pac-10 and ACC are inferior on the field.

Make that matter. The Big 12 officials get paid way too much money to just sit around and let things crumble.

IF OU-OSU-UT-TT all end up in the Pac-16 and then all of a sudden there's an Pac-16 office in Dallas and Dan Beebe somehow has a job there then I give up.

Of course they have - now that the captains of the XII have scuttled the ship.

Unfortunately, the time to be talking was back when it first started taking on water.

MU has dicked this up.

Jesus, man, MU will be fine.

Probably - but not for lack of effort.

What has the administration done to actually help MU's transition here? Apart from droning on and on about how "The XII is our first priority and we are certain we can keep it together" blah blah blah - what have they done?

MU has been a pawn in all this. That's it and that's all.

That's one theory.

How naive do you have to be to think that public facing comments are all that is happening.

I will answer that for you...

Very.

The PAC 12 and the ACC are tough enough.

The PAC may have overtaken the SEC in terms of best football conference.

Oregon
USC
Stanford
Oklahoma
Texas
Oklahoma State

Because MU's administration has proven itself to be airtight in the past, right?

How naive do you have to be to believe that this administration is capable of keeping a lid on back-alley machinations?

I won't even bother answering it for you - recent history has done it for me.

You're right that I should have qualified my original statement. In a perfect world, these conferences would want to add institutions that bring everything to the table: athletics ($), television markets, and high-quality academics.

When put to the test, though, we've seen that these same conferences are more than willing to disregard the last of these three. See: Utah, Nebraska, and the likely additions of OSU and TT.

This is why I laughed about the premise of adding Rice. Sure, it's great that it's a fine academic university, but without the Houston market, outside conference wouldn't even want to urinate on this institution.

Academic branding is such an ancillary point in all of this that, yes, it's laughable.

Dude.

@LaSportsDudeJordan Grove


RT @finebaum: Tusc News' Cecil Hurt,'The SEC would like to have Missouri, but will wait & see on Big 12. WVU is 4th or 5th on the list.'

Just wondering....Would KU fans here be more attracted to the ACC (if it turns into the mega-basketball conference some on the radio are predicting) or to one of the power conferences (B10, Pac12)?

You don't want em'.

Only a ****ing idot would pick the ACC over the B1G.

LMAO

Yeah, ok.

I edited my post to include B10, Pac12, power conferences.
I don't have any particular interest in seeing KU in the B10 due to their lack of a football program but I respect them as an institution.

PAC 16 or B1G...

I hear a lot of KU fans here say they care more about hoops than football. So, I was wondering if they would rather be in a power b-ball conference than a prime BCS conference.

B1G Network needs some winter programming as well and KU would provide some basketball ratings.

Rather than join the other members of college hoops royalty in the ACC?

That makes sense. We watch B10 hoops in the winter as it is but it would be fun to have KU mixed in.
No matter if it is KU or someone else they won't seem like a B10 team.
Hell I still don't think of Penn State as B10.

As a fan it would be nice to be able to see some of the games....

Living in OK, going where OU goes makes sense...

I love driving to the Noble toilet center and watch the Hawks live. Also like watching them get killed in football also live...

they go to the ACC or B1G and my football and basketball experience takes a hit...

Honestly no, academia in computers(especially systems) does not generally do 'primary research'. I've been on both sides of this fence at the very highest levels and I've seen what happens. One of the problems is that academia generally doesn't know what has been done before and so they 'publish' a lot of old work. Now that isn't always bad because it is useful to publish ideas that have been developed before but haven't been published previous. But it isn't really novel and that does make it somewhat disappointing. You don't really get to appreciate this until you actually know what happens behind the curtain to know exactly how far behind academia really is.

There is a real question of who is doing primary research these days. The reality is, big industrial labs aren't, academia generally isn't(there are always exceptions), is it startups then? Not really because once you get funded you're productizing and not really doing research.

Academia should be the place where primary research is done, but really it isn't. Part of the reason is that they don't have the resources to really tackle 'bigish' problems that really have to work. Cute little ideas sure, big problems not as much. Academia also rewards more publications and the best way to get 'more' is to publish a lot of a smallish safeish ideas. Try something big and revolutionary and it doesn't work and your tenure case is screwed(or your thesis etc).

That is one of the real problems in the computer field today and realistically I'm not sure the best way to solve that. It is an important issue because we're really not pushing the envelop like we used to. Everything today is evolutionary. Where did the revolutionary ideas go?

Keitzman was insane today. He is terrified at the though of ksu ending up as a mid-major.

That makes sense, from a fan's perspective.

NEW YORK (AP) — A person involved in the discussions tells The Associated Press that school and conference officials from the Big East and Big 12 have been discussing ways to merge what's left of the two leagues if Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12.


The person, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk publicly about what is going on behind the scenes, said Monday there has been dialogue between athletic directors and high-level officials in the conference offices.


Syracuse and Pittsburgh have announced they will be leaving the Big East for the Atlantic Coast Conference.


Texas and Oklahoma are both trying to decide whether to leave the Big 12 for the Pac-12, taking Oklahoma State and Texas Tech with them.


http://news.yahoo.com/ap-source-big-...210302164.html

For a basketball crazy school, not really... and the ACC opens up a lot of opportunity for a football team to really succeed.

ACC is where football goes to die.

:cuss: Pure Suck, KU had better get on the ball here and become as attractive as possible to a mega conference.

Supposedly, the SEC turned down WVU.

There is only so much sister ****ing a conference can take.

Best news in the last week.

KU can't go to the ACC anyway, They aren't on the Atlantic Coast, but the main reason is better academic standing to get smarter students. The Sports are great as well from LAX to football.

WTF ever. It is year in and out one of the top 3 conferences in football.

I think shit just got real. Re: Texas BOR

WVU brings nothing to the SEC.

LMAO Of course it is. Football schools are stampeding to get in.

Huh? Only five schools in the ACC are part of the AAU.

Anyway, this is no longer about academics.

The ACC hasn't been top 3 in football in the last decade. Have you been living under a rock?

Iowa State 35th in college football attendance
Cyclones rank fifth in Big 12, outpace most of ACC, Big East, Pac-12

What do you mean. They already have the best football schools on the entire Atlantic Coast that are available that have the academics to even be admitted.

I believe it's specifically about number of TV sets, although i could be wrong.

I think academics is part of it, in that it can prevent you from getting to the final round but it can't win you a spot by itself.

West Virginia has awful academics, and conferences are wary about bringing in a school that has such a poor reputation.

They've played two rivals at home. Tell me the stats at the end of the year.

Bullshit.

They've been better than the Big 10, Big 12/Pac-10, and the Big East. Swap out the big 12 and pac 10 some years as things go up and down.

Big 10 and Big East football is a joke compared to the other conferences they are always last and at no time over the past ten years been better than the ACC top-to-bottom.

SEC academics aren't terrible, but WVU is good enough to get in that conference from an academic perspective.

Texas might break both next weekend. But hey nice try.

The decision by the UT regents is odd. They declined to give UT the authority to change conferences. They basically gave them the authority to either publicly announce that UT is staying in the Big 12, or come back again later to ask for permission to leave the Big 12 if UT doesn't think they can make it work.