Big 10, Big 12, and Pac 12 shuffle (maybe) coming in hot

[AgaveMaria]

7 hours ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Why is fan attendance greater in the Big 10 than in the Pac 12?   Perhaps because the Big 10 tends to have university members that have somewhat cornered the major university markets in their particular states (such as Nebraska)?   In the Pac 12, there are so many universities (especially in California) that there's always something else to watch, if folks want. 

   Maybe there's not much else to do in the typical Big 10 member states, when compared to the outdoorsy Pac 12?   The Midwest is flatland.  There's nothing wrong with that; it's a remarkably impressive breadbasket.   But out west, folks have scenic views all over the place.   Sitting in a stadium has competition.   And many folks out there are transplants, who are less likely to get excited about college sports since family traditions aren't tugging them in the direction of attending sporting events quite as much.   

There does seem to be population density in key Pac 12 markets though.  I attended a Dodgers professional baseball game in Los Angeles and it was well attended.   

I don't doubt that I'm missing part of the picture here, though, so please don't worry that I'll be insulted or hurt if you correct me.  I'm seeking knowledge, not tolerance.      

Written by someone who probably believes that the attractiveness of a woman is only determined by her possibility of becoming a waitress at HOOTERS.

[billyhoyle]

21 minutes ago, AgaveMaria said:

Written by someone who probably believes that the attractiveness of a woman is only determined by her possibility of becoming a waitress at HOOTERS.

There's objectively much less to do in the areas surrounding Columbus, Ann Arbor, State College, and Iowa City than the Bay Area, LA, and Seattle.  The same is true for Utah, Oregon, etc, for those who like hiking/camping/the outdoors. That's just a fact. 

[bnwtwg]

Only a fool would believe the Big Ten did not approach Stanford and Cal at some point. Only a bigger fool would not follow the money trail which has been very explicitly laid out by @ILLINIWrestlingBlog. Only the biggest fool would not put two and two together by seeing x+y=z

x=the big money

y=the regional sports money

z=zero revenue [I mean cmon folks it’s a bunch of non-profits how dare anyone think this is about “total revenue” because it OBVIOUSLY equals zero out of the graciousness of their hearts]

[bnwtwg]

8 hours ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Why is fan attendance greater in the Big 10 than in the Pac 12?   Perhaps because the Big 10 tends to have university members that have somewhat cornered the major university markets in their particular states (such as Nebraska)?   In the Pac 12, there are so many universities (especially in California) that there's always something else to watch, if folks want. 

   Maybe there's not much else to do in the typical Big 10 member states, when compared to the outdoorsy Pac 12?   The Midwest is flatland.  There's nothing wrong with that; it's a remarkably impressive breadbasket.   But out west, folks have scenic views all over the place.   Sitting in a stadium has competition.   And many folks out there are transplants, who are less likely to get excited about college sports since family traditions aren't tugging them in the direction of attending sporting events quite as much.   

There does seem to be population density in key Pac 12 markets though.  I attended a Dodgers professional baseball game in Los Angeles and it was well attended.   

I don't doubt that I'm missing part of the picture here, though, so please don't worry that I'll be insulted or hurt if you correct me.  I'm seeking knowledge, not tolerance.      

Alcohol consumption

By appreciated

eVent

I reckon a sociologist would call it ABV. And ABV drives the numbies.

[swoopdown]

22 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

Only a fool would believe the Big Ten did not approach Stanford and Cal at some point. Only a bigger fool would not follow the money trail which has been very explicitly laid out by @ILLINIWrestlingBlog. Only the biggest fool would not put two and two together by seeing x+y=z

x=the big money

y=the regional sports money

z=zero revenue [I mean cmon folks it’s a bunch of non-profits how dare anyone think this is about “total revenue” because it OBVIOUSLY equals zero out of the graciousness of their hearts]

How much revenue sharing exists with research grants?  Do the "have-nots" get much in hand-me-downs from the "have-a-lots""?  How much sharing really exists?  I don't know much about the research world other than a vague impression that it varies wildly between that of adding value and being worthless political pork.  How does a school like Carnegie Mellon get so much when it is not part of an alliance like Ivy League, B10 etc?   Does the CMU example mean that being a part of an alliance is not the critical factor in getting $$$?  Many questions here.

[Wrestleknownothing]

47 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

Only a fool would believe the Big Ten did not approach Stanford and Cal at some point. Only a bigger fool would not follow the money trail which has been very explicitly laid out by @ILLINIWrestlingBlog. Only the biggest fool would not put two and two together by seeing x+y=z

x=the big money

y=the regional sports money

z=zero revenue [I mean cmon folks it’s a bunch of non-profits how dare anyone think this is about “total revenue” because it OBVIOUSLY equals zero out of the graciousness of their hearts]

I have read this post three times and I still have no clue what you are saying.

[swoopdown]

1 hour ago, billyhoyle said:

There's objectively much less to do in the areas surrounding Columbus, Ann Arbor, State College, and Iowa City than the Bay Area, LA, and Seattle.  The same is true for Utah, Oregon, etc, for those who like hiking/camping/the outdoors. That's just a fact. 

Hiking/camping/outdoors at State College is just fine actually for both winter and summer activities.  The one positive thing it lacks that the west coast has in abundance is an ocean.   So boating, fishing, swimming in nature is limited to its plentiful lakes and rivers.  Or you can drive the 4 1/2 hours to the ocean and spend a weekend as many (not me, I have too much to do locally) do.  So it's not a fatal flaw.

Edited August 7, 2023 by swoopdown

[ionel]

8 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

... the biggest fool would not put two and two together

 

7 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I have read this post three times and I still have no clue what you are saying.

maybe the key is reading it a fourth time 

[ionel]

7 hours ago, swoopdown said:

How much revenue sharing exists with research grants?  Do the "have-nots" get much in hand-me-downs from the "have-a-lots""?  How much sharing really exists?  I don't know much about the research world other than a vague impression that it varies wildly between that of adding value and being worthless political pork.  How does a school like Carnegie Mellon get so much when it is not part of an alliance like Ivy League, B10 etc?   Does the CMU example mean that being a part of an alliance is not the critical factor in getting $$$?  Many questions here.

Its complicated.  Within a university there is some revenue sharing for the "have-nots" as those bring in the big research grants are paying 55%+ overhead back to the university, some of this is passed back down to departs where "have-nots" may be able to access funds.  However most is probably chewed up in admin expenses, salary, campus O&M etc.  If the grant is certain Fed govt funding the overheard rate is not as large at say Land Grants cause the Feds established/funded Land Grants over the long run.

There is often collaboration among universities some within conferences say B10 where 3 to 5 universities (faculty within related depts) work together on joint research and thus share the overhead or admin burden a sorta "have-not" member could kindve be a free rider.

Another example a recent very large NSF project where Illinois was the lead and included Brown, Stanford and Arkansas.  Seems like a odd mix, NSF sometimes wants a little diversity and yeah there's a bit of wokenes in Federal funding.

Another model, preferred by some, is go directly to industry for research on industry needs etc, gonna pay the full overhead rate, grants and contract will waste a lot of time worrying about every little IP issue but more freedom to partner with others on campus or at other institutions, course industry wants results not just another publication.

Ok that was my short one cup of coffee response.    

[Idaho]

There is chatter on several possibilities going on at the same time:

1. A Pac-MW merger

2. ACC taking all 4 in order to be able to renegotiate  their grant of rights media deal. 

3. The B12 is still having talks

On a separate but related note... the B12 was interested in merging with the PAC 12 to form a super conference a couple years ago. The PAC did not want to do that....so they just took their teams. 

[gimpeltf]

37 minutes ago, Idaho said:

There is chatter on several possibilities going on at the same time:

1. A Pac-MW merger

2. ACC taking all 4 in order to be able to renegotiate  their grant of rights media deal. 

???

[Wrestleknownothing]

The Athletic has a good article today about how joining the Big 10 has been bad for Rutgers. According to their research, "despite astronomical increases in shared Big Ten revenue, the athletic department has racked up more than $250 million in debt."

They are one of the only Big Ten schools whose athletic departments are not self-sustaining. "Of the Big Ten's 13 public universities, nine athletics departments receive minimal of no funding from the university, state or from student fees. However, over eight years of data, Rutgers has received nearly $240.8 million in direct university or state funding or from student fees." The other three in the category (Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota) received a combined $200 million net.

With increased travel expenses for the likes of Rutgers, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington things could actually be worse for some of these schools on the bottom line even if the top line improves.

[peanut]

9 hours ago, swoopdown said:

Hiking/camping/outdoors at State College is just fine actually for both winter and summer activities.  The one positive thing it lacks that the west coast has in abundance is an ocean.   So boating, fishing, swimming in nature is limited to its plentiful lakes and rivers.  Or you can drive the 4 1/2 hours to the ocean and spend a weekend as many (not me, I have too much to do locally) do.  So it's not a fatal flaw.

Part of the equation is weather. There a number of “drunkest cities” lists going around, and they all name cold places as the drunkest — Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, etc. State College might have more to offer than other places in terms of outdoor activities, but cold weather deters a lot of people. 

[bnwtwg]

11 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I have read this post three times and I still have no clue what you are saying.

They increased the real $ by unlocking a regional economic driver with a supplemental long-term committed athletic revenue driver. Except they can't say profit or revenue because they're all "non-profit organizations" wink wink

[Idaho]

Big 12 has decided not to pursue Oregon State and San Diego State at this time. 

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-12-decision-2-more-schools-report

[Idaho]

2 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

???

Yep... before last week they had been talking full merger - Philips wanted to "close the gap on the SEC and B10."  Since a lot of teams have left it obviously isn't the same conversation. They are still interested in adding the 4 teams due to the TV deal they can get out of and replaced. This however might be the chance Florida State is looking for to jump to the SEC depending on if they would want them.  This is not a part of the story line reported, however if you can also grab San Diego State and Boise State, two teams with good TV ratings, you might be able to realign the conference in such a way that scheduling would be a little easier. The ACC is looking to try close the gap - that is for sure. With options dwindling, adding Pac 4 teams might be a good option. My understanding is that Pac 12 is continuing the discussion of a MW merger today. Given the last two weeks....who knows what "new" thing could happen. 

[ILLINIWrestlingBlog]

Question for the board --

 

Financially, which would you rather have as a University President, a five-star QB recruit like Trevor Lawrence/Justin Fields or a Nobel Prize winning research Physicist? What if the choice was between a Nobel winner in Chemistry and a top football coach like Dabo Swinney or Mike Gundy? 

I think there would be folks here who would disagree with me on this. 

[Idaho]

7 minutes ago, ILLINIWrestlingBlog said:

Question for the board --

 

Financially, which would you rather have as a University President, a five-star QB recruit like Trevor Lawrence/Justin Fields or a Nobel Prize winning research Physicist? What if the choice was between a Nobel winner in Chemistry and a top football coach like Dabo Swinney or Mike Gundy? 

I think there would be folks here who would disagree with me on this. 

I would hold out for a guy who won the Nobel prize in high school but was also a five-star recruit. 

[Dogbone]

13 minutes ago, ILLINIWrestlingBlog said:

Financially, which would you rather have as a University President

Are we pretending Universities are run like for profit businesses or like public institutions?   Not sure I follow the financially part of the question. 

 

[MPhillips]

19 minutes ago, ILLINIWrestlingBlog said:

Question for the board --

 

Financially, which would you rather have as a University President, a five-star QB recruit like Trevor Lawrence/Justin Fields or a Nobel Prize winning research Physicist? What if the choice was between a Nobel winner in Chemistry and a top football coach like Dabo Swinney or Mike Gundy? 

I think there would be folks here who would disagree with me on this. 

There's a goodly amount of folks around here that ain't got no reckoning for no science...

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 hours ago, bnwtwg said:

They increased the real $ by unlocking a regional economic driver with a supplemental long-term committed athletic revenue driver. Except they can't say profit or revenue because they're all "non-profit organizations" wink wink

 

[ionel]

5 hours ago, MPhillips said:

There's a goodly amount of folks around here that ain't got no reckoning for no science...

ain't got no english niether  

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

Of potential interest, fundraising for launching NCAA D1 wrestling programs might already be something on the radar of various teams such as Washington, Oregon, UCLA & USC (etc.).   It could be interesting (& informative) to reach out to them and see what they have to say.   Some programs might be closer to getting to launch something than we might presently realize.   One can find club programs for all of those schools (and many more) here.   If you like, please feel free to invite the coaches and participants to these forums so they can share their insights directly with us.

http://www.ncwa.net/teams

Specifically:

***Oregon
https://ncwa.net/teams/uo

Meanwhile:  https://www.facebook.com/SaveOregonWrestling/  

Also:  a women's club team exists there, too:  https://ncwa.net/teams/uow 


    NEXT:

***UCLA:
https://ncwa.net/teams/ucla

Also: a women's club:  https://ncwa.net/teams/uclaw


ADDITIONALLY:

***USC:
https://ncwa.net/teams/usc

For women:  https://ncwa.net/teams/uscw


And then there's Larry Owings' alma mater:

***U of Washington:
https://ncwa.net/teams/uw

For more on Larry:   https://nwhof.org/hall_of_fame/bio/4667 

They have a women's club team program that's gaining momentum, too:

https://ncwa.net/teams/uww

Edited August 8, 2023 by TitleIX is ripe for reform

[ILLINIWrestlingBlog]

17 hours ago, Dogbone said:

Are we pretending Universities are run like for profit businesses or like public institutions?   Not sure I follow the financially part of the question. 

 

Wow! I have to agree with you! I wrote that very poorly. In fact, it reads like you have to choose between a quarterback and a physics professor for your University President. This is what I originally wrote:

Quote

Financially, which would you rather have as a University President, a five-star QB recruit like Trevor Lawrence/Justin Fields or a Nobel Prize winning research Physicist? What if the choice was between a Nobel winner in Chemistry and a top football coach like Dabo Swinney or Mike Gundy?

Ouch. That's bad. What I meant was more like:

Quote

If you were University President, which would you rather have if your goal was to make more money for your university: A five-star QB, a Nobel-prize winning professor, or a big time football coach? 

My belief is that you would want the professor rather than the QB because the professor will be around longer, will attract better students (with brilliant ideas that can lead to patents), will attract better research partners, will attract more research dollars, and will help create more patents and other discoveries. I would want the professor over the big-time coach as well, mainly because a coach is almost never a sure thing, while a Nobel-winning professor almost always is. 

And no, I'm not pretending that universities are run like for-profit businesses because the fact of the matter is that they are run like for-profit businesses. Instead of going to shareholders, though, "profits" go back into the university, the endowment, or some other accounting scheme. Cheers!

[Dogbone]

2 hours ago, ILLINIWrestlingBlog said:

Wow! I have to agree with you!

 

This is where I stopped reading... JK.

In all seriousness, I understand your point and agree that University Presidents/Chancellors care more about  academics than athletics and value the research dollars and ability to bring in the best professors as it has the greater chance to improve their academic reputation/ranking.    I believe schools have experienced an increase in enrollment when they have had national success in football/basketball so I do think you can make an argument for the 5 star QB, but your point, especially the long term viewpoint remains.

Being included in the Big 10 academic alliance is a big deal for them, no question. It is one of the reason any President/chancellor the Big 10 ask to join is going to accept. 

BUT it is not the sole criteria for the Big 10 conference to invite new members as Stanford would bring more to the table both academically and overall athletic success.   It's football that is driving the bus.