Why the Big 10 Rules-- and the SEC are Fools

[Mudge]

After reading some of the articles about the shakeups in college athletic conferences, I did some (modest) research on college budgets (overall, research, and athletic), particularly for some of the schools in the conferences most in the news lately. While I do not claim to be an expert in higher education finance, I still think it is readily apparent that the Big 10 (and certainly the Ivy League, which does not even bother to play the silly "sports really matter" game) has the real "money game" figured out, and the SEC is playing around with chump change. From my perspective, those who think the Big 10 is lying (when the Big 10 says that they care about academics) are totally missing where the real money in higher education is-- it's in research, not athletics. Here are some of the figures for some of the relevant schools:

School Overall Budget Research Budget Athletic Budget
Ohio State $5.2B $1.1B $142M
Michigan $5.5B $1.3B $129M
Wisconsin $3.0B $1.0B $102M
Indiana $2.3B $400M $72M
Purdue $2.2B $500M $71M
Nebraska $2.3B $530M $82M

Alabama $700M $70M $124M
Auburn $700M $80M $106M
Arkansas $650M $120M $100M
Florida $2.3B $1.1B $120M
Kentucky $2.5B $200M $86M

Louisville $1.2B $184M $88M
Duke $2.2B $600M $79M

Harvard $4.0B $700M $20M
Princeton $1.5B $270M $18M

Texas $2.4B $700M $163M

From what I can see from the above data, the Big 10 IS serious when they say that they are only interested in premier universities that are leaders in academic research-- schools that are in the AAU (Association of American Universities). The Big 10 isn't wasting their time on schools that are pipsqueaks, when it comes to overall budgets and particularly when it comes to research. Even the worst academic school in the Big 10 (Nebraska, which was just kicked out of the AAU) dwarfs most all of the SEC schools, when it comes to overall and research budget. The Big 10 would never be interested in most of the SEC schools, because these schools are academic midgets, when it comes to overall budgets and research budgets-- the only schools in the SEC that would interest the Big 10 would be Florida (large research budget, premier state university in that huge population state), and maybe Texas A&M, Missouri, and possibly Vanderbilt (though Vandy's small following makes them less attractive), because all of them are in the AAU (and are the only SEC schools in it)... the rest of the SEC schools think that punching above their weight in athletic budgets makes them big-time-- but it hardly makes up for their puny overall and research budgets. Similarly, I think the Big 10 would ultimately like to add Texas (along with Florida) before any other schools, at this point.

It should be noted that the Big 10 operates its own subsidiary of the AAU, that it calls the CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) that consists of the 14 Big 10 members/invitees, plus the Univ. of Chicago, (which is a former founding member of the Big 10)-- and the main purpose of the CIC is to help harvest ever more research dollars for its members-- this is why the Big 10 DOES focus on academic reputation, despite what the ESPNs of the world would have you think-- the real money (as the IVY League, and MIT and CalTech have known forever) is in research-- not athletics.

P.S.-- Shockingly (to me at least), Duke actually has the 4th largest athletic budget in the ACC, with FSU and Virginia virtually tied at $81M, and Duke virtually tied with UNC, for third at $79M... I never would have guessed that Duke spends more on athletics than Clemson, NCSU, and VPI... you learn something new everyday...

[roywhite]

P.S.-- Shockingly (to me at least), Duke actually has the 4th largest athletic budget in the ACC, with FSU and Virginia virtually tied at $81M, and Duke virtually tied with UNC, for third at $79M... I never would have guessed that Duke spends more on athletics than Clemson, NCSU, and VPI... you learn something new everyday...

Not an insider or an expert on these numbers, but realize what the cost of a Duke scholarship is and multiply the number of students on athletic scholarship; that's a big element of cost for Duke, higher than the other schools you mentioned.

[Steven43]

After reading some of the articles about the shakeups in college athletic conferences, I did some (modest) research on college budgets (overall, research, and athletic), particularly for some of the schools in the conferences most in the news lately. While I do not claim to be an expert in higher education finance, I still think it is readily apparent that the Big 10 (and certainly the Ivy League, which does not even bother to play the silly "sports really matter" game) has the real "money game" figured out, and the SEC is playing around with chump change. From my perspective, those who think the Big 10 is lying (when the Big 10 says that they care about academics) are totally missing where the real money in higher education is-- it's in research, not athletics. Here are some of the figures for some of the relevant schools:

School Overall Budget Research Budget Athletic Budget
Ohio State $5.2B $1.1B $142M
Michigan $5.5B $1.3B $129M
Wisconsin $3.0B $1.0B $102M
Indiana $2.3B $400M $72M
Purdue $2.2B $500M $71M
Nebraska $2.3B $530M $82M

Alabama $700M $70M $124M
Auburn $700M $80M $106M
Arkansas $650M $120M $100M
Florida $2.3B $1.1B $120M
Kentucky $2.5B $200M $86M

Louisville $1.2B $184M $88M
Duke $2.2B $600M $79M

Harvard $4.0B $700M $20M
Princeton $1.5B $270M $18M

Texas $2.4B $700M $163M

From what I can see from the above data, the Big 10 IS serious when they say that they are only interested in premier universities that are leaders in academic research-- schools that are in the AAU (Association of American Universities). The Big 10 isn't wasting their time on schools that are pipsqueaks, when it comes to overall budgets and particularly when it comes to research. Even the worst academic school in the Big 10 (Nebraska, which was just kicked out of the AAU) dwarfs most all of the SEC schools, when it comes to overall and research budget. The Big 10 would never be interested in most of the SEC schools, because these schools are academic midgets, when it comes to overall budgets and research budgets-- the only schools in the SEC that would interest the Big 10 would be Florida (large research budget, premier state university in that huge population state), and maybe Texas A&M, Missouri, and possibly Vanderbilt (though Vandy's small following makes them less attractive), because all of them are in the AAU (and are the only SEC schools in it)... the rest of the SEC schools think that punching above their weight in athletic budgets makes them big-time-- but it hardly makes up for their puny overall and research budgets. Similarly, I think the Big 10 would ultimately like to add Texas (along with Florida) before any other schools, at this point.

It should be noted that the Big 10 operates its own subsidiary of the AAU, that it calls the CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) that consists of the 14 Big 10 members/invitees, plus the Univ. of Chicago, (which is a former founding member of the Big 10)-- and the main purpose of the CIC is to help harvest ever more research dollars for its members-- this is why the Big 10 DOES focus on academic reputation, despite what the ESPNs of the world would have you think-- the real money (as the IVY League, and MIT and CalTech have known forever) is in research-- not athletics.

P.S.-- Shockingly (to me at least), Duke actually has the 4th largest athletic budget in the ACC, with FSU and Virginia virtually tied at $81M, and Duke virtually tied with UNC, for third at $79M... I never would have guessed that Duke spends more on athletics than Clemson, NCSU, and VPI... you learn something new everyday...

I have a very hard time believing that Ohio State, Wisconsin and Michigan spend between $1 billion and $1.3 billion on research while Duke and Harvard spend $600 million and $700 million, respectively. How can this be possible?

[ricks68]

After reading some of the articles about the shakeups in college athletic conferences, I did some (modest) research on college budgets (overall, research, and athletic), particularly for some of the schools in the conferences most in the news lately. While I do not claim to be an expert in higher education finance, I still think it is readily apparent that the Big 10 (and certainly the Ivy League, which does not even bother to play the silly "sports really matter" game) has the real "money game" figured out, and the SEC is playing around with chump change. From my perspective, those who think the Big 10 is lying (when the Big 10 says that they care about academics) are totally missing where the real money in higher education is-- it's in research, not athletics. Here are some of the figures for some of the relevant schools:

School Overall Budget Research Budget Athletic Budget
Ohio State $5.2B $1.1B $142M
Michigan $5.5B $1.3B $129M
Wisconsin $3.0B $1.0B $102M
Indiana $2.3B $400M $72M
Purdue $2.2B $500M $71M
Nebraska $2.3B $530M $82M

Alabama $700M $70M $124M
Auburn $700M $80M $106M
Arkansas $650M $120M $100M
Florida $2.3B $1.1B $120M
Kentucky $2.5B $200M $86M

Louisville $1.2B $184M $88M
Duke $2.2B $600M $79M

Harvard $4.0B $700M $20M
Princeton $1.5B $270M $18M

Texas $2.4B $700M $163M

From what I can see from the above data, the Big 10 IS serious when they say that they are only interested in premier universities that are leaders in academic research-- schools that are in the AAU (Association of American Universities). The Big 10 isn't wasting their time on schools that are pipsqueaks, when it comes to overall budgets and particularly when it comes to research. Even the worst academic school in the Big 10 (Nebraska, which was just kicked out of the AAU) dwarfs most all of the SEC schools, when it comes to overall and research budget. The Big 10 would never be interested in most of the SEC schools, because these schools are academic midgets, when it comes to overall budgets and research budgets-- the only schools in the SEC that would interest the Big 10 would be Florida (large research budget, premier state university in that huge population state), and maybe Texas A&M, Missouri, and possibly Vanderbilt (though Vandy's small following makes them less attractive), because all of them are in the AAU (and are the only SEC schools in it)... the rest of the SEC schools think that punching above their weight in athletic budgets makes them big-time-- but it hardly makes up for their puny overall and research budgets. Similarly, I think the Big 10 would ultimately like to add Texas (along with Florida) before any other schools, at this point.

It should be noted that the Big 10 operates its own subsidiary of the AAU, that it calls the CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) that consists of the 14 Big 10 members/invitees, plus the Univ. of Chicago, (which is a former founding member of the Big 10)-- and the main purpose of the CIC is to help harvest ever more research dollars for its members-- this is why the Big 10 DOES focus on academic reputation, despite what the ESPNs of the world would have you think-- the real money (as the IVY League, and MIT and CalTech have known forever) is in research-- not athletics.

P.S.-- Shockingly (to me at least), Duke actually has the 4th largest athletic budget in the ACC, with FSU and Virginia virtually tied at $81M, and Duke virtually tied with UNC, for third at $79M... I never would have guessed that Duke spends more on athletics than Clemson, NCSU, and VPI... you learn something new everyday...

What I find pretty amazing is that a school with approximately 7 or 8+ times as many students as Duke, has a very similar overall and research budget---------Texas. From personal experience, I can tell you that the salaries at UT are well below the norm, as is the cost of tuition. Their endowment, however, is absolutely huge, as is their athletic budget.


ricks

[-bdbd]

I have a very hard time believing that Ohio State, Wisconsin and Michigan spend between $1 billion and $1.3 billion on research while Duke and Harvard spend $600 million and $700 million, respectively. How can this be possible?

That's because they're "researching" how to beat each other in Football!!

But seriously, I would point out that there is a HUGE difference between the size of a school's research budget and the QUALITY of the education at said school. That element is usually gauged more on the quality of the educational product students generally gain by going there, and the selectivity of the school in terms of admissions. It also has to do with how much is actually invested (and is it well-invested) on the TEACHING side of the university. Some of the Big10 schools listed are simply beheamoths with huge state funding levels, but not much in terms of selectivity or academic stature. Looking at the list above, it is worth noting that by dividing the overall budget by the number of students you arrive at overall dollars spent per-student, producing very positive views of Duke, Harvard, Princeton, et al. versus the OSU's and Iowa's of the world.

In the post-defection "justifications" coming out of College Park, there was significant obfuscation regarding the purported "academic stature" of the Big10 over the ACC. And research budgets (and the Big10 pooling of research monies) was used as supposed evidence to this end. But my understanding of pooling would lead me to believe that it could just as easily COST Maryland research dollars and it could provide EXTRA funds to the school. And, anyway, that really has nothing to do with the academic stature/reputations/selectivity/benefit-to-the-common-student of most Big10 schools, which has schools ranked by US News (broadly lower than the ACC) at 12, 29, 41, 46, 46, 56, 65, 68, 68, 72, 72, 83, and 101. That is contrasted with the ACC (post-expansion 2013) at 8, 17, 24, 27, 30, 31, 36, 44, 58, 58, 58, 68, 72, 97, 106.

[ns7]

After reading some of the articles about the shakeups in college athletic conferences, I did some (modest) research on college budgets (overall, research, and athletic), particularly for some of the schools in the conferences most in the news lately. While I do not claim to be an expert in higher education finance, I still think it is readily apparent that the Big 10 (and certainly the Ivy League, which does not even bother to play the silly "sports really matter" game) has the real "money game" figured out, and the SEC is playing around with chump change. From my perspective, those who think the Big 10 is lying (when the Big 10 says that they care about academics) are totally missing where the real money in higher education is-- it's in research, not athletics. Here are some of the figures for some of the relevant schools:

Where did you get these numbers from? I've heard that the AAU is biased in how it classifies "research." For example, I've heard that some agricultural research doesn't count for the AAU. This obviously hurts the Southern and Texan schools.

Additionally, Wake Forest isn't in the AAU. Does this mean the ACC is "foolish" for having them as a member? Wake has an excellent undergraduate program. Why punish them for having a limited graduate school?

[Mudge]

I have a very hard time believing that Ohio State, Wisconsin and Michigan spend between $1 billion and $1.3 billion on research while Duke and Harvard spend $600 million and $700 million, respectively. How can this be possible?

I don't pretend to know all the reasons, but I would imagine one of reasons is: vastly larger faculties (at the Big 10 schools), with more professors to "win" the research dollars available to be earned from various public and private sources-- and, in particular, much larger engineering departments, which (along with natural sciences and medicine) tend to be the real big sources of research grants-- money for liberal arts grants in humanities, arts, etc., tends to be much more limited. You've got to remember that Ohio State has over 56,000 students, while Michigan and Wisconsin are in the 40,000 range-- Duke (with ~10,000 total) has done really well in moving up to punch well above its weight in research grants/budgets, in my estimation, because of its huge medical center, and the enormous expansion of Duke's Engineering school's facilities and resources. In fact, I am impressed that Duke is as close as it is to Harvard, given Harvard's vastly larger range of programs and numbers of grad students-- and Harvard's longer established traditions in virtually every field.

If you want to see some guys REALLY punching above their weight in research grants, check out MIT and CalTech-- CalTech has less than 1000 students, but their research budget is amazingly large, as is MIT's (though MIT is quite a bit bigger in number of students).

[Mudge]

Where did you get these numbers from? I've heard that the AAU is biased in how it classifies "research." For example, I've heard that some agricultural research doesn't count for the AAU. This obviously hurts the Southern and Texan schools.

Additionally, Wake Forest isn't in the AAU. Does this mean the ACC is "foolish" for having them as a member? Wake has an excellent undergraduate program. Why punish them for having a limited graduate school?

The numbers above aren't gospel-- some numbers are for 2010-2011 year, some for 2011-2012, and some for 2012-2013-- I had to take what I could get (but the numbers are probably good enough for comparative purposes, given the huge disparities between the SEC schools, and the serious academic schools). I got the numbers by going to each school's website, and looking up their budget numbers. So, for example, Nebraska (which was just recently thrown out of the AAU, for not meeting their standards for scholarship and research, in part because they claim they weren't given proper credit for agricultural research) was given credit for whatever research money that they characterized as being from various grant sources-- you'll note that they were credited with a pretty substantial research budget in my table. The numbers for the Southern schools also came from their own budget documents.

I don't think that excuse can explain away the Southern schools' overemphasis on athletics in general, and football in particular, in the larger scheme of their budgets-- it feels to me like the South is still trying to win the Civil War by winning at college football today, still not recognizing that that is a fool's errand... just like having most of the best generals in the start of the Civil War (because Southerners dominated the enrollment at West Point, VMI, the Citadel, etc., before the war began) never made up for the fact that the North had far more people, who created far more factories, that could (and did) churn out far more weapons and supplies to better equip far larger armies than the South could ever hope to have-- the SEC schools are focusing on mostly the wrong things, if their primary purpose is supposed to be to educate their local populace and elevate the economic conditions of their states-- but there's nothing new about that.

As for Wake Forest and the ACC, I said nothing about them-- the ACC has numerous schools which are not in the AAU-- Clemson, FSU, NCSU, VPI, BC, ND, Miami, Louisville, Syracuse (another recent reject), all join Wake on the AAU non-member list... only UVa, UNC, GIT, and Pitt join Duke on the member list. I think the ACC is not in as good a negotiating position as the Big 10 to say who they will and won't take-- for now, the ACC probably will be happy to hang on to whomever they've got at the moment.

[Mudge]

That's because they're "researching" how to beat each other in Football!!

But seriously, I would point out that there is a HUGE difference between the size of a school's research budget and the QUALITY of the education at said school. That element is usually gauged more on the quality of the educational product students generally gain by going there, and the selectivity of the school in terms of admissions. It also has to do with how much is actually invested (and is it well-invested) on the TEACHING side of the university. Some of the Big10 schools listed are simply beheamoths with huge state funding levels, but not much in terms of selectivity or academic stature. Looking at the list above, it is worth noting that by dividing the overall budget by the number of students you arrive at overall dollars spent per-student, producing very positive views of Duke, Harvard, Princeton, et al. versus the OSU's and Iowa's of the world.

In the post-defection "justifications" coming out of College Park, there was significant obfuscation regarding the purported "academic stature" of the Big10 over the ACC. And research budgets (and the Big10 pooling of research monies) was used as supposed evidence to this end. But my understanding of pooling would lead me to believe that it could just as easily COST Maryland research dollars and it could provide EXTRA funds to the school. And, anyway, that really has nothing to do with the academic stature/reputations/selectivity/benefit-to-the-common-student of most Big10 schools, which has schools ranked by US News (broadly lower than the ACC) at 12, 29, 41, 46, 46, 56, 65, 68, 68, 72, 72, 83, and 101. That is contrasted with the ACC (post-expansion 2013) at 8, 17, 24, 27, 30, 31, 36, 44, 58, 58, 58, 68, 72, 97, 106.

I did not slam the ACC's academic standing vis a` vis the Big 10-- I think there is a strong argument to be made for the general academic quality of both leagues-- though I do not think the ACC is enhanced by adding Louisville and subtracting Maryland. I also think you are underestimating the quality of the education (despite their large size) at places like Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State, etc.-- Michigan and Northwestern are fairly known quantities, but many of the other Big 10 schools are as good or better than some of the ACC schools (like NCSU, Clemson, FSU)... but I am absolutely more convinced (after this study) that the Big 10 schools hold a substantial edge in academic quality over the SEC schools, on average-- and that isn't measured just in research dollars, but also in all of the other things that the AAU (and US News & World Report) use to measure the academic quality of a school, such as admission selectivity and faculty research citations and awards.

[davekay1971]

Count me in the category of those who don't care much about the academic standing of members of an athletic conference. I graduated from Duke. That degree carries weight because Duke University is one of the best in the nation...not because the schools we're paired to play against in sports are good, bad, or indifferent. If Duke belongs to a conference that will allow the school to have a good balance line in the authentic budget vs. revenue equation, and will allow me to enjoy seeing my alma mater's teams compete, great. Whether Clemson or UNC is a good or bad school academically doesn't affect how good Duke is academically, and doesn't affect my enjoyment when watching Duke beat them on the basketball court one iota.

Am I mistaken in looking at Duke's academic standing, research capabilities and budget, etc, as being largely independent from those of our athletic partners?

[Newton_14]

Getting back to the Football side of the equation, there are 9 SEC teams playing in Bowl games, and all 9 are favored. There are 7 Big Ten teams playing in Bowl games, and all 7 are underdogs...

[roywhite]

Count me in the category of those who don't care much about the academic standing of members of an athletic conference. I graduated from Duke. That degree carries weight because Duke University is one of the best in the nation...not because the schools we're paired to play against in sports are good, bad, or indifferent. If Duke belongs to a conference that will allow the school to have a good balance line in the authentic budget vs. revenue equation, and will allow me to enjoy seeing my alma mater's teams compete, great. Whether Clemson or UNC is a good or bad school academically doesn't affect how good Duke is academically, and doesn't affect my enjoyment when watching Duke beat them on the basketball court one iota.

Am I mistaken in looking at Duke's academic standing, research capabilities and budget, etc, as being largely independent from those of our athletic partners?

Seems like your position is reasonable.

I have read that some B1G schools DO recognize some synergy and benefit in cooperative research and efforts with the faculty of other conference members. Not in any position to verify that myself, and don't know if the same may hold true in the ACC.

Perhaps some Duke faculty members or administrators could speak to this?

[DueBlevil]

I have a very hard time believing that Ohio State, Wisconsin and Michigan spend between $1 billion and $1.3 billion on research while Duke and Harvard spend $600 million and $700 million, respectively. How can this be possible?

For Harvard, this number is a little deflated. A very large percentage of research for a university comes from its medical center, except in certain cases (MIT for example, which does not have a medical school, but is involved in a great deal of biomedical research). The research revenue for Harvard proper does not include all research revenue done by Harvard faculty--this is because Harvard has a medical school but it does not actually operate a hospital. All of the faculty at Mass General, Brigham, Beth Israel, Boston Children's, Dana-Farber, and so on, have Harvard faculty appointments and are considered part of Harvard Medical school. NIH revenue from these 4 institutions alone is over $1 billion. Just FYI

[House G]

The numbers above aren't gospel-- some numbers are for 2010-2011 year, some for 2011-2012, and some for 2012-2013-- I had to take what I could get (but the numbers are probably good enough for comparative purposes, given the huge disparities between the SEC schools, and the serious academic schools). I got the numbers by going to each school's website, and looking up their budget numbers. So, for example, Nebraska (which was just recently thrown out of the AAU, for not meeting their standards for scholarship and research, in part because they claim they weren't given proper credit for agricultural research) was given credit for whatever research money that they characterized as being from various grant sources-- you'll note that they were credited with a pretty substantial research budget in my table. The numbers for the Southern schools also came from their own budget documents.

I don't think that excuse can explain away the Southern schools' overemphasis on athletics in general, and football in particular, in the larger scheme of their budgets-- it feels to me like the South is still trying to win the Civil War by winning at college football today, still not recognizing that that is a fool's errand... just like having most of the best generals in the start of the Civil War (because Southerners dominated the enrollment at West Point, VMI, the Citadel, etc., before the war began) never made up for the fact that the North had far more people, who created far more factories, that could (and did) churn out far more weapons and supplies to better equip far larger armies than the South could ever hope to have-- the SEC schools are focusing on mostly the

wrong things, if their primary purpose is supposed to be to educate their local populace and elevate the economic conditions of their states-- but there's nothing new about that.

As for Wake Forest and the ACC, I said nothing about them-- the ACC has numerous schools which are not in the AAU-- Clemson, FSU, NCSU, VPI, BC, ND, Miami, Louisville, Syracuse (another recent reject), all join Wake on the AAU non-member list... only UVa, UNC, GIT, and Pitt join Duke on the member list. I think the ACC is not in as good a negotiating position as the Big 10 to say who they will and won't take-- for now, the ACC probably will be happy to hang on to whomever they've got at the moment.

Last time I checked, North Carolina was one of the Confederate states. Is it a fool's errand for Duke, Wake, UNC, etc. to "overemphasize" basketball? I personally do not believe that pursuit of academic excellence and athletic excellence are mutually exclusive endeavors. The implication that one cannot obtain a good education at many of these SEC schools is, in my opinion, misguided.

[TheDevilMadeMeDoIt]

This rates as one of the most interesting discussions I have ever read on a sports blog. Perhaps our society in general should wake up and demand the same excellence in academics that many schools only demand in their football team. Please don't think for a moment that I want Duke to be an also ran in football. I am as avid as any fan on this board, but there has to be some balance or eventually the whole football bubble in the BCS will pop.

[tommy]

These numbers and what they mean are very interesting. Appreciate everyone's contributions here. Maybe someone can explain one thing to me that I haven't understood in all the conversations about conference realignment and the impact of academic reputation and research dollars, etc. on that realignment:

What concrete, on-the-ground effect does the athletic conference a school is in have on its ability to attract research dollars and grow its research budget? When a foundation or some other funding source is looking which university's biomedical engineering researcher to bestow its grant upon, sure, it makes sense that the foundation might prefer to make the grant to a school that is associated with other top academic institutions through the AAU or CIC -- that it's associated with other top academic institutions through academic-type organizations. But why would the foundation or funder care who a school sends its mens basketball players to play against on Saturday afternoons or who it sends its womens volleyball players to play against on Tuesday nights? Why would the funder care if Duke's sports teams are playing against UVA and Pitt or against Clemson? Thanks.

[sagegrouse]

These numbers and what they mean are very interesting. Appreciate everyone's contributions here. Maybe someone can explain one thing to me that I haven't understood in all the conversations about conference realignment and the impact of academic reputation and research dollars, etc. on that realignment:

What concrete, on-the-ground effect does the athletic conference a school is in have on its ability to attract research dollars and grow its research budget? When a foundation or some other funding source is looking which university's biomedical engineering researcher to bestow its grant upon, sure, it makes sense that the foundation might prefer to make the grant to a school that is associated with other top academic institutions through the AAU or CIC -- that it's associated with other top academic institutions through academic-type organizations. But why would the foundation or funder care who a school sends its mens basketball players to play against on Saturday afternoons or who it sends its womens volleyball players to play against on Tuesday nights? Why would the funder care if Duke's sports teams are playing against UVA and Pitt or against Clemson? Thanks.

In my limited experience, government and foundation grants go to principal investigators with a track record, really good ideas, and expertise in fields attracting funding. In most fields, labs and facilities are a part of the equation. Does institutional rep matter? Of course. But the rep is often at the departmental level. And, of course, Div III MIT and Caltech don't get penalized for the lack of athletic teams.

"Athletics are the front porch of the university," sayeth Frank Broyles. Do greater school spirit and curb presence induce alumni and other donors to give funds for academic programs? Probably. And it sure doesn't hurt the funds appropriated by state governments for the state universities. And it attracts students, which require more professors, all of whom have research interests ("publish or perish" is alive and well in most of academia).

The Big Ten schools are really big. So, the phenomenom where Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio State swamp the Ivies in research bucks reflects the huge size of the faculties and the full range of academic programs in these schools with 50,000 students. Thus, the ability to attract students and state government support for big universities eventually affects research. And, of course, the Big Ten schools have been good for a long time. Does athletics play a role in creating this size. I expect so. Otherwise, why would just about every state or land grant university devote huge resources and institutional attention to athletics.

Therefore, athletics probably has a large but very indirect effect, helping build the size of the university and the faculty, attracting a lot more alumni and state funds, and eventually leading to more government and foundation grants -- institutions that care little about athletics.

I hope this made sense, but I have my doubts.

sagegrouse

[devildeac]

Getting back to the Football side of the equation, there are 9 SEC teams playing in Bowl games, and all 9 are favored. There are 7 Big Ten teams playing in Bowl games, and all 7 are underdogs...

It's a basketball conference, silly. That's why the terps joined.

[-bdbd]

I did not slam the ACC's academic standing vis a` vis the Big 10-- I think there is a strong argument to be made for the general academic quality of both leagues-- though I do not think the ACC is enhanced by adding Louisville and subtracting Maryland. I also think you are underestimating the quality of the education (despite their large size) at places like Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State, etc.-- Michigan and Northwestern are fairly known quantities, but many of the other Big 10 schools are as good or better than some of the ACC schools (like NCSU, Clemson, FSU)... but I am absolutely more convinced (after this study) that the Big 10 schools hold a substantial edge in academic quality over the SEC schools, on average-- and that isn't measured just in research dollars, but also in all of the other things that the AAU (and US News & World Report) use to measure the academic quality of a school, such as admission selectivity and faculty research citations and awards.

Mudge, good points. But I wasn't saying that you'd slammed ACC academics. I was just making a second, independent point on the same subject. I get quite irritated residing in the DC area and repeatedly hearing all of the MD justifications for the defection to the Big10 all the time -- particularly that it was a step UP for academics. It was not. And their "academic" justifications usually turn on a subject very close to the one you raised, comparing research dollars of the two leagues (and the Big10 program that pools much of those funds). BTW, based on the US News rankings the ACC overall is clearly the better of the two conferences, though obviously there is some rankings overlap among some schools. Aside, if you look at the ranking numbers I listed from US News, ironically, the three ACC schools that you name as comparative to the Big10, happen to be the very last three ACC school rankings I listed - Clemson (72), then NCSU (83), then FSU (101). But the ACC has about half of its league in the top-40, whereas the Big10 has just TWO schools there.

While I don't think, at this juncture, that the decision to add Louisville was a bad one - especially given their FB and BB strengths - it does sadden me that academics has clearly taken a distinct back seat to other considerations in choosing conference partners for the ACC, which I still hold to be the best D1 conference for academics. And I think the league leadership has long felt that way, which contributed to the decisions on other recent additions, Pitt, Syracuse and Notre Dame. But I'm guessing L'ville's addition was partially to appease ACC FB powers FSU and Clemson by adding some FB strength - a trend I don't expect to change next time either.

While the whole "rankings" discussion can be given too much weight, certainly, I do still struggle with why the average student cares about how much research money is spent at their school. Isn't overall school ranking much more relevant to that average kid than what research is being done/spent miles away in the back of the Medical Center or Applied Sciences buildings...

[Greg_Newton]

What concrete, on-the-ground effect does the athletic conference a school is in have on its ability to attract research dollars and grow its research budget?

I've been trying to figure out the answer to this question myself, and have yet to hear a great explanation. I feel like there must be one, but I have no idea what it is.

gumbo, I hear what you're saying, but that speaks more to the value of having strong athletics in general. What I don't understand is the benefit of being in an "academically strong" athletic conference. Ivy League, sure, due to name recognition, but no one proudly attends or donates to Duke because it's an "ACC school" academically. Is the idea that people will cross network with other smart people at tailgates, or something?

Whatever the practical benefit is, I have a feeling it will become even more marginalized if we keep heading towards 16-team superconferences. Most major conferences have already started losing any historical identity and meaning they might have had, and it's not like you're going to get much academic value from banding together with a particular set of fifteen random football programs to leverage a TV deal.