(04-16-2013 12:06 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 12:02 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I'm surprised some of their goons in the State House haven't pushed through a special tax to help save the precious state treasure that is Chapel Hill Athletics.

"Is it the well, or the bell, or the fact that Chapel Hill can go straight to Hell, that makes it such a special place?"

Well geez thanks for giving them the idea.

Don't worry, they'll just pass a law where 50% of the proceeds from revenues at all the other UNC System Universities will go straight to Chapass Hole Athletics.

I think people are overlooking the most important thing about UNC and the B1G:

The CIC, Committee on Institutional Cooperation. THAT is what makes the B1G attractive. Forget bowl revenue, TV deals, and ticket prices. The CIC is the big deal. All B1G members are members of the CIC, and together they have the strongest research lobbying group in the country. Last year they received grants to complete a total of $8.4 billion dollars of research.

That makes a ten million dollar media deal difference look like small potatoes. Its why Rutgers and Maryland were added the B1G instead of other institutions with bigger and stronger athletic departments. For simple comparison, look at the difference in research spending between B1G members and ACC members (from 2010):

National Ranking. School - Spending
B1G
2. Michigan - $1.184 billion
3. Wisconsin - $1.029 billion
13. Minnesota - $787 million
14. Penn State - $770 million
16. Ohio State - $755 million
26. Northwestern - $603 million
32. Purdue - $549 million
34. Illinois - $515 million
37. Maryland - $451 million
39. Iowa - $444 million
40. University of Chicago (not a member of B1G but a member of the CIC) - $437 million
41. Michigan State - $432 million
42. Rutgers - $428 million
103. Nebraska - $191 million (only non-AAU institution)
107. Indiana - $107 million
AVERAGE: $578.8 million


ACC
5. Duke - $983 million
11. Pittsburgh - $822 million
15. UNC - $755 million
25. GA Tech - $616 million
47. VA Tech - $398 million
57. NCState - $361 million
74. Miami - $281 million
75. Virginia - $276 million
84. FSU - $238 million
101. Wake Forest - $192 million
104. Louisville - $189 million
108. Clemson - $175 million
137. Notre Dame - $110 million
140. Syracuse - $107 million
189. Boston College - $50.5 million
AVERAGE: $370 million

That is a difference of $200 million per school! But the advantages go far beyond that difference (which still dwarfs . You see, while the CIC doesn't directly give money to it's member institutions, it acts as a lobbying body for those institutions in two ways. First, researchers from CIC institutions serve on the very committees that dictate funding for research, so more researchers equals more money. Secondly, the CIC uses the power of its flagship institutions to push Congressmen to vote for CIC interests.

This gives some more info. Basically adding UNC (and Duke), would give the CIC unprecedented access to government funding. With that extra influence on funding, the other CIC members will see even more access to research grants. UNC and Duke? The potential for hundreds of millions in research grants.

Yes, technically this isn't money that would go towards the 40% in athletic department revenue. But for sheer solid cash, the research suggests that you should go with research, and specifically the CIC. That is why I feel UNC and Duke will make the jump to the B1G eventually. More bowl revenue, more TV revenue, but more importantly, more research money.

Once again, "Gee, it would be great if our geniuses here at Michigan could collaborate on ground-breaking cancer research with those geniuses at North Carolina. But dammit, their football team is in a different conference. So that cure for cancer will just have to wait."

If decisions are really based on nonsense like this, then we are all going to hell.

(04-16-2013 12:49 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  Once again, "Gee, it would be great if our geniuses here at Michigan could collaborate on ground-breaking cancer research with those geniuses at North Carolina. But dammit, their football team is in a different conference. So that cure for cancer will just have to wait."

If decisions are really based on nonsense like this, then we are all going to hell.

Lol...

I don't know if UNC is going to stay put or jump but the OP jump to this conclusion is just funny. Like many have already stated...@ Louisville as the #2 University in Kentucky we have already done what the UNC AD wants to do and even exceeded what he has stated.

Also, one of the draws that Louisville had for the ACC was that many in the league wanted insight on now we did it.

Time will tell but as of today I kind of doubt when push comes too shove that UNC will move...it has been stated that they have a standing offer from the B1G for the past few years and they haven't jumped yet...just saying

(04-16-2013 12:38 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  I think people are overlooking the most important thing about UNC and the B1G:

The CIC, Committee on Institutional Cooperation. THAT is what makes the B1G attractive. Forget bowl revenue, TV deals, and ticket prices. The CIC is the big deal. All B1G members are members of the CIC, and together they have the strongest research lobbying group in the country. Last year they received grants to complete a total of $8.4 billion dollars of research.

That makes a ten million dollar media deal difference look like small potatoes. Its why Rutgers and Maryland were added the B1G instead of other institutions with bigger and stronger athletic departments. For simple comparison, look at the difference in research spending between B1G members and ACC members (from 2010):

National Ranking. School - Spending
B1G
2. Michigan - $1.184 billion
3. Wisconsin - $1.029 billion
13. Minnesota - $787 million
14. Penn State - $770 million
16. Ohio State - $755 million
26. Northwestern - $603 million
32. Purdue - $549 million
34. Illinois - $515 million
37. Maryland - $451 million
39. Iowa - $444 million
40. University of Chicago (not a member of B1G but a member of the CIC) - $437 million
41. Michigan State - $432 million
42. Rutgers - $428 million
103. Nebraska - $191 million (only non-AAU institution)
107. Indiana - $107 million
AVERAGE: $578.8 million


ACC
5. Duke - $983 million
11. Pittsburgh - $822 million
15. UNC - $755 million
25. GA Tech - $616 million
47. VA Tech - $398 million
57. NCState - $361 million
74. Miami - $281 million
75. Virginia - $276 million
84. FSU - $238 million
101. Wake Forest - $192 million
104. Louisville - $189 million
108. Clemson - $175 million
137. Notre Dame - $110 million
140. Syracuse - $107 million
189. Boston College - $50.5 million
AVERAGE: $370 million

Yet, without the CIC, UNC-Chapel Hill ranks above 10 members of the Big 10 and is tied with OSU.

UNC may move. I have no idea, but I think the ACC is grossly underpaid and has a tremendous amount of untapped revenue potential, which all makes UNC's revenue goals easily obtainable without calling the B1G hotline. But whatever. They should do what is in their best interests.

My main point on this topic is that if the institutions of higher learning in this country really are directing research revenue based on athletic affiliations, then we as a society are heading in a direction that ends in a very undesirable place.

(04-16-2013 01:07 PM)Maize Wrote:  it has been stated that they have a standing offer from the B1G for the past few years and they haven't jumped yet...just saying

That was so 5 minutes ago. Then the Domers got it for 2 minutes. Now I believe Butler has it.

(04-16-2013 01:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Yet, without the CIC, UNC-Chapel Hill ranks above 10 members of the Big 10 and is tied with OSU.

The CIC isn't the only way to get research dollars. It is a way to enhance your schools academic reputation and lobby for even more research dollars. In general, the schools of the B1G tend to get significantly more money from research grants than other schools, so it is reasonable to conclude that UNC (and Duke) would get even more money if they switched. I'd estimate that they'd get between $100-200 million from the switch, per year.

One thing to note: Other conferences DO NOT have anything like the CIC. The SEC, ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12 do not have any such organization to try and get more research money. Only the B1G does this. There are a variety of reasons for this, and it doesn't come down to football and basketball.

Instead, it is more about populations and power. Every school in the B1G is a flagship institution, a state-funded school that would get large amounts of research money even without the CIC. They have institutional common-ground, in other words. Also, there is a political component to the CIC as well. You'll notice that B1G schools tend to dominate their local areas (ie, virtually everyone in Ohio is a Ohio State fan), and those areas are also highly competitive political battlegrounds. What is the one thing that Democrats and Republicans in Ohio agree on? Ohio State. Same for every other B1G school.

So it doesn't come down to football or basketball. It comes down to large populations of people that support the universities, common ground between those universities, and politicians that are willing to advocate for research grants in order to try and get some of the votes from the fans. The CIC is just a natural extension of these forces. Whereas Baylor, TCU, and KState have no incentive to work together for this type of thing, the B1G has 14 members that have similar goals and university backgrounds. They realized that they make more money working together than they do as separate entities, and that is why the CIC exists.

OMG, the ignorance of the CIC rears its head again. You have no FREAKING CLUE what the HELL you are talking about.

(04-16-2013 01:48 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Yet, without the CIC, UNC-Chapel Hill ranks above 10 members of the Big 10 and is tied with OSU.

The CIC isn't the only way to get research dollars. It is a way to enhance your schools academic reputation and lobby for even more research dollars. In general, the schools of the B1G tend to get significantly more money from research grants than other schools, so it is reasonable to conclude that UNC (and Duke) would get even more money if they switched. I'd estimate that they'd get between $100-200 million from the switch, per year.

One thing to note: Other conferences DO NOT have anything like the CIC. The SEC, ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12 do not have any such organization to try and get more research money. Only the B1G does this. There are a variety of reasons for this, and it doesn't come down to football and basketball.

Instead, it is more about populations and power. Every school in the B1G is a flagship institution, a state-funded school that would get large amounts of research money even without the CIC. They have institutional common-ground, in other words. Also, there is a political component to the CIC as well. You'll notice that B1G schools tend to dominate their local areas (ie, virtually everyone in Ohio is a Ohio State fan), and those areas are also highly competitive political battlegrounds. What is the one thing that Democrats and Republicans in Ohio agree on? Ohio State. Same for every other B1G school.

So it doesn't come down to football or basketball. It comes down to large populations of people that support the universities, common ground between those universities, and politicians that are willing to advocate for research grants in order to try and get some of the votes from the fans. The CIC is just a natural extension of these forces. Whereas Baylor, TCU, and KState have no incentive to work together for this type of thing, the B1G has 14 members that have similar goals and university backgrounds. They realized that they make more money working together than they do as separate entities, and that is why the CIC exists.

You really didn't have to go into this lengthy explanation of the CIC. I'm fully aware of what it is and how it operates. My point still stands, UNC doesn't need it.

(04-16-2013 03:06 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:48 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Yet, without the CIC, UNC-Chapel Hill ranks above 10 members of the Big 10 and is tied with OSU.

The CIC isn't the only way to get research dollars. It is a way to enhance your schools academic reputation and lobby for even more research dollars. In general, the schools of the B1G tend to get significantly more money from research grants than other schools, so it is reasonable to conclude that UNC (and Duke) would get even more money if they switched. I'd estimate that they'd get between $100-200 million from the switch, per year.

One thing to note: Other conferences DO NOT have anything like the CIC. The SEC, ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12 do not have any such organization to try and get more research money. Only the B1G does this. There are a variety of reasons for this, and it doesn't come down to football and basketball.

Instead, it is more about populations and power. Every school in the B1G is a flagship institution, a state-funded school that would get large amounts of research money even without the CIC. They have institutional common-ground, in other words. Also, there is a political component to the CIC as well. You'll notice that B1G schools tend to dominate their local areas (ie, virtually everyone in Ohio is a Ohio State fan), and those areas are also highly competitive political battlegrounds. What is the one thing that Democrats and Republicans in Ohio agree on? Ohio State. Same for every other B1G school.

So it doesn't come down to football or basketball. It comes down to large populations of people that support the universities, common ground between those universities, and politicians that are willing to advocate for research grants in order to try and get some of the votes from the fans. The CIC is just a natural extension of these forces. Whereas Baylor, TCU, and KState have no incentive to work together for this type of thing, the B1G has 14 members that have similar goals and university backgrounds. They realized that they make more money working together than they do as separate entities, and that is why the CIC exists.

You really didn't have to go into this lengthy explanation of the CIC. I'm fully aware of what it is and how it operates. My point still stands, UNC doesn't need it.

Apparently, neither of you do. The CIC does absolutely nothing for any members as far as obtaining one $1 of research funding. Not some sort of lobbying that gives them some "advantage". NOTHING. ZERO.

UNC already has the ACCIAC, which does essentially the same things minus the purchasing consortium.

Academic consortiums do nothing, not one thing, to enable a member to be obtain extramural research money. That is not how money is distributed to institutions, either public federal allocations or private foundation allocations. NOT ONE THING that factors into the allocation process of federal or private research extramural allocations is changed by CIC membership, AAU membership, ACCIAC members, or anything else.

(04-16-2013 01:48 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Yet, without the CIC, UNC-Chapel Hill ranks above 10 members of the Big 10 and is tied with OSU.

The CIC isn't the only way to get research dollars. It is a way to enhance your schools academic reputation and lobby for even more research dollars. In general, the schools of the B1G tend to get significantly more money from research grants than other schools, so it is reasonable to conclude that UNC (and Duke) would get even more money if they switched. I'd estimate that they'd get between $100-200 million from the switch, per year.

One thing to note: Other conferences DO NOT have anything like the CIC. The SEC, ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12 do not have any such organization to try and get more research money. Only the B1G does this. There are a variety of reasons for this, and it doesn't come down to football and basketball.

Instead, it is more about populations and power. Every school in the B1G is a flagship institution, a state-funded school that would get large amounts of research money even without the CIC. They have institutional common-ground, in other words. Also, there is a political component to the CIC as well. You'll notice that B1G schools tend to dominate their local areas (ie, virtually everyone in Ohio is a Ohio State fan), and those areas are also highly competitive political battlegrounds. What is the one thing that Democrats and Republicans in Ohio agree on? Ohio State. Same for every other B1G school.

So it doesn't come down to football or basketball. It comes down to large populations of people that support the universities, common ground between those universities, and politicians that are willing to advocate for research grants in order to try and get some of the votes from the fans. The CIC is just a natural extension of these forces. Whereas Baylor, TCU, and KState have no incentive to work together for this type of thing, the B1G has 14 members that have similar goals and university backgrounds. They realized that they make more money working together than they do as separate entities, and that is why the CIC exists.

The SEC currently has 4 AAU members: Florida, Missouri, Texas A&M, and Missouri. The ACC currently has 5 AAU members: Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, and Virginia. The Big 12 has three: Iowa State, Kansas and Texas. There are two private schools not in a power conference who reside in the South and have AAU membership: Rice and Tulane.

Jim Delany's wild realignment moves are neither wild nor based upon realignment. Rutgers and Maryland are both AAU bringing the Big 10 total to 13 present AAU members. With congressional representation gradually moving to the South Delany realized that the Big 10's solid grip on the AAU money and lobbying power could slip. His bold plan to move South is really an effort to cut the SEC off from building their version of the CIC up. The SEC started their form two years ago.

Should the ACC, Big 12, and SEC pool their AAU schools in an organization independent of athletics they would have 12 AAU schools between them. Throw in Rice and Tulane and they now have 1 more vote than the Big 10. Delany can't afford to lose the lobby power, and congressional seats, to the South. Networks are about 10's of millions. Grant money is about 100's of millions.

An SEC cooperating with AAU members from the ACC and Big 12 would rival the lobby and fund raising power of the Big 10's vaunted CIC. The aggressor is usually the more desperate of the two combatants in a battle. The Big 10 is aggressive because their power base and access to the Federal bundles that have subsidized them could be (not is) in jeopardy. They are not vulnerable for a total loss of those funds as that won't happen. But their control of the AAU lobby is vulnerable and might have to one day be shared. That could cost Big 10 schools lots of money.

The political angle of these machinations has heretofore been grossly understated and to understand that angle is to understand realignment a lot more clearly. Rutgers and Maryland may have been TV market adds, but more importantly they put the Big 10 within 1 more addition of available AAU schools from keeping a simple majority over any rival for AAU voting membership.

Declining tax bases are behind the money grab with the networks and behind the assemblage of schools posing as athletic realignments which in fact are political lobby realignments.

The SEC is late to this game, but not clueless as to the motivations of the Big 10. Virginia, Georgia Tech, and North Carolina are targets because the add markets while securing the Big 10's control as the largest voting block in the AAU. In a pinch to get to the number needed to keep the simple majority as the largest voting block the Big 10 would take Duke or Pittsburgh. It's about lobby power for grant money. House members count and the more house members per the state the higher the priority its university with AAU connections become.

UNC to the B1G would blow the roof off of realignment... all bets would be off. ACC would qucikly look the AAC. Greedy greegy greedy bastards...particularly Jim Delany.

Big 10 control of the AAU? More COMPLETE IGNORANCE. MY LORD. People, just stop. You sound like complete idiots.

On this topic, the board reads like someone throwing medical jargon around without having a inkling of what the words mean.

(04-16-2013 03:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:48 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Yet, without the CIC, UNC-Chapel Hill ranks above 10 members of the Big 10 and is tied with OSU.

The CIC isn't the only way to get research dollars. It is a way to enhance your schools academic reputation and lobby for even more research dollars. In general, the schools of the B1G tend to get significantly more money from research grants than other schools, so it is reasonable to conclude that UNC (and Duke) would get even more money if they switched. I'd estimate that they'd get between $100-200 million from the switch, per year.

One thing to note: Other conferences DO NOT have anything like the CIC. The SEC, ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12 do not have any such organization to try and get more research money. Only the B1G does this. There are a variety of reasons for this, and it doesn't come down to football and basketball.

Instead, it is more about populations and power. Every school in the B1G is a flagship institution, a state-funded school that would get large amounts of research money even without the CIC. They have institutional common-ground, in other words. Also, there is a political component to the CIC as well. You'll notice that B1G schools tend to dominate their local areas (ie, virtually everyone in Ohio is a Ohio State fan), and those areas are also highly competitive political battlegrounds. What is the one thing that Democrats and Republicans in Ohio agree on? Ohio State. Same for every other B1G school.

So it doesn't come down to football or basketball. It comes down to large populations of people that support the universities, common ground between those universities, and politicians that are willing to advocate for research grants in order to try and get some of the votes from the fans. The CIC is just a natural extension of these forces. Whereas Baylor, TCU, and KState have no incentive to work together for this type of thing, the B1G has 14 members that have similar goals and university backgrounds. They realized that they make more money working together than they do as separate entities, and that is why the CIC exists.

The SEC currently has 4 AAU members: Florida, Missouri, Texas A&M, and Missouri. The ACC currently has 5 AAU members: Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, and Virginia. The Big 12 has three: Iowa State, Kansas and Texas. There are two private schools not in a power conference who reside in the South and have AAU membership: Rice and Tulane.

Jim Delany's wild realignment moves are neither wild nor based upon realignment. Rutgers and Maryland are both AAU bringing the Big 10 total to 13 present AAU members. With congressional representation gradually moving to the South Delany realized that the Big 10's solid grip on the AAU money and lobbying power could slip. His bold plan to move South is really an effort to cut the SEC off from building their version of the CIC up. The SEC started their form two years ago.

Should the ACC, Big 12, and SEC pool their AAU schools in an organization independent of athletics they would have 12 AAU schools between them. Throw in Rice and Tulane and they now have 1 more vote than the Big 10. Delany can't afford to lose the lobby power, and congressional seats, to the South. Networks are about 10's of millions. Grant money is about 100's of millions.

An SEC cooperating with AAU members from the ACC and Big 12 would rival the lobby and fund raising power of the Big 10's vaunted CIC. The aggressor is usually the more desperate of the two combatants in a battle. The Big 10 is aggressive because their power base and access to the Federal bundles that have subsidized them could be (not is) in jeopardy. They are not vulnerable for a total loss of those funds as that won't happen. But their control of the AAU lobby is vulnerable and might have to one day be shared. That could cost Big 10 schools lots of money.

The political angle of these machinations has heretofore been grossly understated and to understand that angle is to understand realignment a lot more clearly. Rutgers and Maryland may have been TV market adds, but more importantly they put the Big 10 within 1 more addition of available AAU schools from keeping a simple majority over any rival for AAU voting membership.

Declining tax bases are behind the money grab with the networks and behind the assemblage of schools posing as athletic realignments which in fact are political lobby realignments.

The SEC is late to this game, but not clueless as to the motivations of the Big 10. Virginia, Georgia Tech, and North Carolina are targets because the add markets while securing the Big 10's control of the AAU. In a pinch to get to the number needed to keep the simple majority the Big 10 would take Duke or Pittsburgh. It's about lobby power for grant money. House members count and the more house members per the state the higher the priority its university with AAU connections become.

For the viewers at home who thought I was nuts for even mentioning Tulane in the same breath as "ACC" -- this is another angle, combined with the fact Tulane has history with members of the ACC from the ol' Southern Conference days.

Why would Rice and Tulane want to pool their votes in with the SEC/ACC/Big XII? Why would that benefit Tulane or Rice?

Rice and Tulane are not being influenced by their respective state houses as they are private universities. Furthermore, they are mid-majors athletically. They do not owe anything to the ACC/SEC/Big XII - and will never wind up in one of those three conferences going forward.

(04-16-2013 03:21 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Big 10 control of the AAU? More COMPLETE IGNORANCE. MY LORD. People, just stop. You sound like complete idiots.

On this topic, the board reads like someone throwing medical jargon around without having a inkling of what the words mean.

Congressional lobby power Paco. It equals access to federal grant money, obliquely for sure, but it is the best angle.

(04-16-2013 03:25 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Why would Rice and Tulane want to pool their votes in with the SEC/ACC/Big XII? Why would that benefit Tulane or Rice?

Rice and Tulane are not being influenced by their respective state houses as they are private universities. Furthermore, they are mid-majors athletically. They do not owe anything to the ACC/SEC/Big XII - and will never wind up in one of those three conferences going forward.

It is in the combining of lobby power that Federal grant money, even to private schools, may be optimized. They don't have the same pull as a state school because of the the size of the alumni base (voters) but they do have a vote on AAU membership status and they will have the attention of their congressmen for no other reason than they are voters and many of their graduates will be in some positions of influence within their state. Pool those 14 schools and the Big 10 is outvoted in AAU by 1 vote and the lobby power of the group would land more grant money for the South than it presently gets. Grant money is finite. More for the South means less for the North. It's not precise that way because the funds are for different projects that may not be applicable to Southern schools, but even those projects compete for the grants. And while it is not direct political influence is important.

The Big 10 does not control the AAU now because the organization includes many schools private and public that may not be affiliated with an athletic conference, but the Big 10's 13 schools is the largest voting block within the organization. The PAC has 8. A Southern block of 14 would not gain control either, but together they could wield much more influence than they have had.

Federal research dollar ranking

http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf

page #11

Top 15 for Federal Research Dollars (2009):
Johns Hopkins
Univ. of Michigan
Univ. of Washington
MIT
Univ. of California-San Diego
Univ. of Wisconsin
Univ. of Pennsylvania
Columbia Univ.
Stanford Univ.
UCLA
Pitt
Duke
Univ. of North Carolina
Washington Univ.-Saint Louis
Univ. of Minnesota