Anyways, Chip Brown from Orangebloods.com reports OU may apply to the Pac-12 by the end of the month.
Oklahoma will apply for membership to the Pac-12 before the end of the month, and Oklahoma State is expected to follow suit, a source close to OU's administration told Orangebloods.com.
Even though Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said Friday the Pac-12 was not interested in expansion at this time, OU's board of regents is fed up with the instability in the Big 12, the source said.
The OU board of regents will meet within two weeks to formalize plans to apply for membership to the Pac-12, the source said.
Messages left Sunday night with OU athletic director Joe Castiglione and Oklahoma State athletic director Mike Holder were not immediately returned.
If OU follows through with what appears to be a unanimous sentiment on the seven-member Oklahoma board of regents to leave the Big 12, realignment in college athletics could be heating back up. OU's application would be matched by an application from Oklahoma State, the source said, even though OSU president Burns Hargis and mega-booster Boone Pickens both voiced their support for the Big 12 last Thursday.
There is differing sentiment about if the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors are ready to expand again after bringing in Colorado and Utah last year and landing $3 billion TV contracts from Fox and ESPN. Colorado president Bruce Benson told reporters last week CU would be opposed to any expansion that might bring about east and west divisions in the Pac-12.
Currently, there are north and south divisions in the Pac-12. If OU and OSU were to join, Larry Scott would have to get creative.
Scott's orginal plan last summer was to bring in Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and put them in an eastern division with Arizona and Arizona State. The old Pac-8 schools (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State) were to be in the west division.
Colorado made the move in June 2010, but when Texas A&M was not on board to go west, the Big 12 came back together with the help of its television partners (ABC/ESPN and Fox).
If Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were accepted into the Pac-12, there would undoubtedly be a hope by Larry Scott that Texas would join the league. But Texas sources have indicated UT is determined to hang onto the Longhorn Network, which would not be permissible in the Pac-12 in its current form.
Texas sources continue to indicate to Orangebloods.com that if the Big 12 falls apart, the Longhorns would consider "all options."
Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe held an emergency conference call 10 days ago with league presidents excluding Oklahoma, Texas and Texas A&M and asked the other league presidents to "work on Texas" because Beebe didn't think the Pac-12 would take Oklahoma without Texas.
Now, it appears OU is willing to take its chances with the Pac-12 with or without Texas.
There seemed to be a temporary pause in any possible shifting of the college athletics' landscape when Baylor led a charge to tie up Texas A&M's move to the Southeastern Conference in legal red tape. BU refused to waive its right to sue the SEC over A&M's departure from the Big 12, and the SEC said it would not admit Texas A&M until it had been cleared of any potential lawsuits.
Baylor, Kansas and Iowa State have indicated they will not waive their right to sue the SEC.
It's unclear if an application by OU to the Pac-12 would draw the same threats of litigation against the Pac-12 from those Big 12 schools.
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
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.
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RustShack:
Do tell. Do you even know what the B1G looks for?
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DeezNutz:
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.
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
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.
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
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.
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by LiveSteam:
GOV grants I think
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
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.
What was once 95% state funding at the UA is now 10-15%. Tuition and Research funding are the lifeblood of a research university. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jAZ:
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.
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DeezNutz:
It's all about money. Nothing more, nothing less. People bring up the other bullshit to try to fool themselves and make the whole thing appear more legitimate.
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). [Reply]
Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD:
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.
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. [Reply]
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. [Reply]
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. [Reply]
