My point is that the be Pac-12 won't initiate anything unless the Big 10 does it first. They follow and never lead. If the Big 10 walks off a cliff, the Pac-12 will too. I don't see the Pac-12 announcing by the end of this week expanding. Why? Well, the Big 10 hasn't said they are expanding. So this Pac-12 press conference or next Pac-12 briefing will be a whole lot of nothing.
IOWA STATE TO BIG TEN?!? Dave Wannstedt thinks so.
- Thread starter cyclone4L
- Start date
The only people deluding themselves are the ones acting like anything at all has been decided or likely will be on any short timeframe.
Big ten has expanded a couple times when the PAC did not. I see their commissioners and very different now.
What are everyone’s thoughts on this? I’m skeptical because it seems that research is not tied to conferences.
I thought somebody said research dollars aren't split. I have ZERO knowledge about that stuff.
Wonder if they think their BTAA will get boosted that much from KU and ISU? I don't know the specifics how they share things. We are just shy of 600 MM in research funding, unsure of KU. Almost seems they are thinking we share research money. No way ISU splits their research money like that.
If the numbers are accurate, I think it is just kind of bragging rights. It isn't like the schools pool their research money and redistribute to other schools.
At the same time, it is important to the B1G, and shows their value to the conference in that way.
At the same time, it is important to the B1G, and shows their value to the conference in that way.
Not how this works. There's no research money pot that's divided. The NSF and other funding agencies find specific projects and specific professors they don't give a damn what conference you are in.
In the Big 10’s case it is, because members of the Big 10 are part of the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA, formerly known as CIC). People who are convinced that this is 100% about athletics don’t understand how big of a deal this is.
The Big Ten’s research is supposedly pooled and then split. So maybe this is accurate.
Edit - I see that the link I had read about the $ being pooled is only an opinion piece.
Last edited:
The BTAA is not a research funding and distribution type of deal. It's a platform for shared databases, shared infrastructure, and collaboration between universities. ISU might be an appealing add to this group, but in no way would us joining the BTA lead to more research money for the other universities, it's not how these things work.
I don't think they pool all of it. They share quite a bit of data and such. The BTAA also may pull a percent or so to help coordinate, but that should come back from cost savings anyhow.
Adding some Big 12 teams and increasing their TV revenue kind of go hand in hand, no?
I think you also have to look at KU as a future opportunity. If KU could ever turn the corner there is most certainly value there. All it takes is the right hire BUT KU hasn't managed to do that yet.
Just my opinion here but of the Pac will make a move it will be to get to 16. Adding four teams for the central time zone would do more for their next TV deal than two. The Pac needs the inventory to boost their TV deal and get their awful network off the ground.
Despite being in a great position with a Top 10 football team, it would be fantastic to get a B1G invite based on academics.
The actual research dollars aren't going to get split by the conference members. It's more about the Big 10 and its schools being able to tout the research dollars in the conference. While I think the BTAA is not really a big deal, it probably doesn't hurt in getting some collaborations going.
As I think I shared before, ISU has a couple of new $10M fed projects, one with ISU as the lead working with PSU, and one with Wisconsin as the lead with ISU as the next biggest partner. ISU has a lot of partnerships in research with Big 10 schools. I can say that of the schools I've worked with on substantial projects, OU is the only Big 12 school I've ever worked with. Meanwhile, I have worked with PSU, Wisconsin in a significant way, Minn., Ill., Iowa, and Neb less directly, and have worked on some minor collaborative stuff with Michigan and MSU.
So I don't think it really helps the other institutions research in a direct way, but it's more about a step toward boosting the overall academic profile of the conference, and getting some important areas of research fully covered.
I am 99% sure you are 100% correct. There's no increased grant money from adding KU & ISU.
There would be some additional prestige however, and I think that does matter to the academic folks and presidents, and they are part of the decision making. If the decision is being made, and it's on the fence, hopefully the academics will push it to ISU's favor.
I think because it becomes a number game. Lets get serious, B1G is constantly measuring d*cks with the SEC and seeing them at 16 teams will put them a couple inches behind... The B1G is running out of options on how they get to 16 teams.
BTAA pools some admin resources. But the schools go get their own research dollars. There's a small level of cost savings and data sharing that the BTAA provides that helps, but in my opinion it doesn't have much influence on schools' research dollars.
Latest posts
-
-
-
RELEASE: ISU head coach Matt Campbell's contract extended through 2032- Latest: Blackhawk6515
-
-
If ISU could schedule KSU as non-conference, would you want them to?- Latest: 1TwistedCyclone