Because this became an extremely long post, here's the short version:
I think adding Nebraska or Notre Dame (or anyone else) ultimately comes down to the university presidents answering this question:
Can we trust Nebraska (or Notre Dame) to commit itself to improving its academics enough to validate Big Ten membership?
Now the long version, which explains my reasoning, if you've got too much time on your hands:
We all know (I hope) that the university presidents have the final say regarding Big Ten expansion. And yet nearly every recent article regarding expansion has focused on athletics, sometimes briefly mentioning academics.
Popular opinion seems to consider the final expansion outcome dependent upon certain contingencies: who acts first, what Notre Dame does, where Texas ends up, etc. But this ignores the simple fact that the Big Ten presidents don't care about all that in the slightest. I have no doubt Jim Delany's recommendations to them take into consideration what the other conferences are doing, but that doesn't mean expansion is centered around those unpredictable circumstances.
Nebraska appears to be on the verge of applying to the Big Ten. So shouldn't the natural assumption be that the key debate leading up to this week has been over their academics? It's no secret that nearly every candidate for expansion would instantly be at the bottom of the Big Ten in terms of research commitment, funding, etc. (Don't give me the US News BS; aside from being generally useless anyway, it has no bearing on expansion). Even Notre Dame would have to do a lot of work to pull its own weight in the CIC.
Rittenberg linked to a Nebraska newspaper article regarding the potential academic benefits of joining the Big Ten. It quoted Penn State officials as saying PSU improved its graduate and research reputation greatly after joining the conference. Professor salaries went up, the amount of research grants procured increased, and the school generally improved academically.
So, I think the immediate expansion rumors ultimately came down to a two-part question the presidents had to consider:
A) Is joining the Big Ten (by itself) enough to boost a university's research reputation and ability to acceptable levels? and
B) If not, can we trust Nebraska (or Notre Dame) to commit itself to improving its academics enough to validate Big Ten membership?
If the answer to A is 'yes', then basically anyone can be invited without concern. In other words, that means the Big Ten is powerful enough to turn any school into a good academic school. I suspect B is the real key issue regarding every expansion candidate. Texas and A & M are already there, but everyone else would have substantial work to do.
If the Big Ten presidents don't think they can trust Nebraska (or any other school) to eventually pull their own weight academically, it doesn't matter how much sense adding them would make from a football perspective. They're not coming.
I've heard Nebraska recently made a big effort to improve many of these criteria on its own. Maybe that is the real reason they appear to be the first school added---answering question B was just easier for the presidents in their case.
I think adding Nebraska or Notre Dame (or anyone else) ultimately comes down to the university presidents answering this question:
Can we trust Nebraska (or Notre Dame) to commit itself to improving its academics enough to validate Big Ten membership?
Now the long version, which explains my reasoning, if you've got too much time on your hands:
We all know (I hope) that the university presidents have the final say regarding Big Ten expansion. And yet nearly every recent article regarding expansion has focused on athletics, sometimes briefly mentioning academics.
Popular opinion seems to consider the final expansion outcome dependent upon certain contingencies: who acts first, what Notre Dame does, where Texas ends up, etc. But this ignores the simple fact that the Big Ten presidents don't care about all that in the slightest. I have no doubt Jim Delany's recommendations to them take into consideration what the other conferences are doing, but that doesn't mean expansion is centered around those unpredictable circumstances.
Nebraska appears to be on the verge of applying to the Big Ten. So shouldn't the natural assumption be that the key debate leading up to this week has been over their academics? It's no secret that nearly every candidate for expansion would instantly be at the bottom of the Big Ten in terms of research commitment, funding, etc. (Don't give me the US News BS; aside from being generally useless anyway, it has no bearing on expansion). Even Notre Dame would have to do a lot of work to pull its own weight in the CIC.
Rittenberg linked to a Nebraska newspaper article regarding the potential academic benefits of joining the Big Ten. It quoted Penn State officials as saying PSU improved its graduate and research reputation greatly after joining the conference. Professor salaries went up, the amount of research grants procured increased, and the school generally improved academically.
So, I think the immediate expansion rumors ultimately came down to a two-part question the presidents had to consider:
A) Is joining the Big Ten (by itself) enough to boost a university's research reputation and ability to acceptable levels? and
B) If not, can we trust Nebraska (or Notre Dame) to commit itself to improving its academics enough to validate Big Ten membership?
If the answer to A is 'yes', then basically anyone can be invited without concern. In other words, that means the Big Ten is powerful enough to turn any school into a good academic school. I suspect B is the real key issue regarding every expansion candidate. Texas and A & M are already there, but everyone else would have substantial work to do.
If the Big Ten presidents don't think they can trust Nebraska (or any other school) to eventually pull their own weight academically, it doesn't matter how much sense adding them would make from a football perspective. They're not coming.
I've heard Nebraska recently made a big effort to improve many of these criteria on its own. Maybe that is the real reason they appear to be the first school added---answering question B was just easier for the presidents in their case.
