Miller: Dollars and Sense of Big 10 Expansion
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
Palpatine
Well-Known Member
tiggerhawk
Well-Known Member
Not just a humorous suggestion; actually, one of the potential candidates for which the BT staff presently is gathering information for the BT president's possible inclusion of expansion on their agenda this year or next is an Ivy League school. Not Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia who know that they would not gain in the great game of research funding pursuit by joining the BT consortium. The long-shot target is Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Cornell in the BT isn't going to happen, obviously. But then neither is Notre Dame, Nebraksa, or Mizzou.
What is at stake here are potential billions of dollars of federal, corporate & foundation money. And because of the breakthroughs and anticipated major developments & pending huge discoveries in treatment of cancer, diabetes, immunity disorders, etc along with greatly increased funding in pharmacology & medical technology/medical engineering the universities that have the most compelling interest to the BT (other than Rutgers & Pitt's impressive medical capabilities) are institutions like Cornell, Carnegie-Mellon, Washington U of St Louis. The entrance of one or more of such institutions would have no effect at all on Big Ten athletics, and thus has little relevance to discussions here about expansion other than it underlines why the BT is not interested in bringing in less-research oriented schools like Mizzou & Nebraska.
My guess (and there is no presumption that it is an informed one) is that two or three years from now either Rutgers or Pitt or both will be offered BT membership & will accept. That won't solve the problems of an uneven number of BT members participating in BT athletic competition--probably complicate it all the more. But if, as seems likely, the number-crunching indicates to the BT presidents that the consortium makes impressive financial gains by adding Rutgers or Pitt or both, it will happen.
So, why not ISU then?
Palpatine
Well-Known Member
If you're talking about expanding the CIC, then I think you've got something.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Does Tigger really think the legitimate BT schools will get less research money because their sports teams associate with sub-par schools like Missouri and Nebraska? And that somewhere, someone in the Big Ten is considering adding Cornell? That's funny.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Thankfully.
trevorbrowne
Member
In a 16-team conference, expect Iowa men's basketball games to have these starting times for TV:
11 p.m. Wednesday
10 a.m. Sunday
9:30 p.m. Monday
with an occasional 4:30 p.m. Friday
11 p.m. Wednesday
10 a.m. Sunday
9:30 p.m. Monday
with an occasional 4:30 p.m. Friday
Seriously, I know that U of Chicago is an original member but do not participate in Big Ten sports,but are they still part of the Big Ten and does the Big Ten profit in research money ect, due to the affiliation with U. of Chicago as tigger is saying that we would from association with Pitt and Rutgers?
Palpatine
Well-Known Member
If we are just looking at research $$$, then here's the list. This is the 2009 ranking from Research- The Center for Measuring University Performance of top research universities. The numbers are total research $$$. But you have to multiply the number by $1000
Johns Hopkins University 1,554,103
University of California -San Francisco 842,840
University of Wisconsin -Madison 840,672
University of California -Los Angeles 823,083
University of Michigan -Ann Arbor 808,731
University of California -San Diego 798,896
Duke University 781,843
University of Washington -Seattle 756,787
Ohio State University -Columbus 720,206
Stanford University 687,511
University of Pennsylvania 648,247
University of Minnesota -Twin Cities 624,149
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 614,352
University of California -Davis 600,508
University of Florida 592,835
Pennsylvania State Univ. -Univ. Park 582,443
Washington University in St. Louis 572,775
University of Pittsburgh -Pittsburgh 558,566
University of California -Berkeley 552,365
Columbia University 545,995
Texas A&M University 543,888
University of Arizona 531,753
University of Southern California 508,138
Univ. of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Ctr. 496,539
University of North Carolina -Chapel Hill 477,231
University of Illinois -Urbana-Champaign 473,890
Georgia Institute of Technology 472,591
Harvard University 451,276
Cornell University 449,307
Yale University 448,671
University of Texas -Austin 446,765
Northwestern University 443,345
Baylor College of Medicine 438,280
Purdue University -West Lafayette 415,172
Vanderbilt University 399,149
Emory University 398,383
University of Cincinnati 375,852
University of Rochester 373,247
Case Western Reserve University 372,374
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 366,960
University of Iowa 363,243
Michigan State University 360,852
Scripps Research Institute 360,511
University of Maryland -College Park 359,760
University of Maryland -Baltimore 358,851
University of Alabama -Birmingham 351,457
University of Illinois -Chicago 342,421
University of Texas SW Medical 341,090
University of Georgia 332,612
North Carolina State University 331,662
University of Chicago 322,488
University at Buffalo 314,837
University of California -Irvine 309,554
New York University 297,867
Colorado State University 288,497
Oregon Health & Science University 287,430
California Institute of Technology 285,488
Rutgers -State University of NJ -New Brunswick 281,186
Mount Sinai 269,451
Stony Brook University 268,282
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center 261,580
University of Colorado -Boulder 259,624
Boston University 249,279
University of Utah 247,794
Wayne State University 235,186
Rockefeller University 233,917
University of Virginia 230,181
Arizona State University 224,352
University of Miami 210,534
Carnegie Mellon University 197,143
Dartmouth College 192,846
Yeshiva University 192,199
University of California -Santa Barbara 191,204
Florida State University 189,565
Princeton University 188,732
Indiana University -Purdue University -Indianapolis 185,414
Univ. of Mass. Med. Sch. -Worcester 157,469
Brown University 152,619
University of Massachusetts -Amherst 141,351
Georgetown University 131,785
Tufts University 130,826
Indiana University -Bloomington 109,567
Temple University 85,394
University of Notre Dame 77,467
Rice University 69,772
Brandeis University 56,831
Welcome to the Big 4x4, Johns Hopkins!
Johns Hopkins University 1,554,103
University of California -San Francisco 842,840
University of Wisconsin -Madison 840,672
University of California -Los Angeles 823,083
University of Michigan -Ann Arbor 808,731
University of California -San Diego 798,896
Duke University 781,843
University of Washington -Seattle 756,787
Ohio State University -Columbus 720,206
Stanford University 687,511
University of Pennsylvania 648,247
University of Minnesota -Twin Cities 624,149
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 614,352
University of California -Davis 600,508
University of Florida 592,835
Pennsylvania State Univ. -Univ. Park 582,443
Washington University in St. Louis 572,775
University of Pittsburgh -Pittsburgh 558,566
University of California -Berkeley 552,365
Columbia University 545,995
Texas A&M University 543,888
University of Arizona 531,753
University of Southern California 508,138
Univ. of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Ctr. 496,539
University of North Carolina -Chapel Hill 477,231
University of Illinois -Urbana-Champaign 473,890
Georgia Institute of Technology 472,591
Harvard University 451,276
Cornell University 449,307
Yale University 448,671
University of Texas -Austin 446,765
Northwestern University 443,345
Baylor College of Medicine 438,280
Purdue University -West Lafayette 415,172
Vanderbilt University 399,149
Emory University 398,383
University of Cincinnati 375,852
University of Rochester 373,247
Case Western Reserve University 372,374
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 366,960
University of Iowa 363,243
Michigan State University 360,852
Scripps Research Institute 360,511
University of Maryland -College Park 359,760
University of Maryland -Baltimore 358,851
University of Alabama -Birmingham 351,457
University of Illinois -Chicago 342,421
University of Texas SW Medical 341,090
University of Georgia 332,612
North Carolina State University 331,662
University of Chicago 322,488
University at Buffalo 314,837
University of California -Irvine 309,554
New York University 297,867
Colorado State University 288,497
Oregon Health & Science University 287,430
California Institute of Technology 285,488
Rutgers -State University of NJ -New Brunswick 281,186
Mount Sinai 269,451
Stony Brook University 268,282
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center 261,580
University of Colorado -Boulder 259,624
Boston University 249,279
University of Utah 247,794
Wayne State University 235,186
Rockefeller University 233,917
University of Virginia 230,181
Arizona State University 224,352
University of Miami 210,534
Carnegie Mellon University 197,143
Dartmouth College 192,846
Yeshiva University 192,199
University of California -Santa Barbara 191,204
Florida State University 189,565
Princeton University 188,732
Indiana University -Purdue University -Indianapolis 185,414
Univ. of Mass. Med. Sch. -Worcester 157,469
Brown University 152,619
University of Massachusetts -Amherst 141,351
Georgetown University 131,785
Tufts University 130,826
Indiana University -Bloomington 109,567
Temple University 85,394
University of Notre Dame 77,467
Rice University 69,772
Brandeis University 56,831
Welcome to the Big 4x4, Johns Hopkins!
Last edited:
tiggerhawk
Well-Known Member
No, what Tigger thinks (what anyone who is aware of the scope and arrangements of the BT consortium and can do the simple math understands) is best illustrated by a simple example:
A new industry is coming to your town, and will spend a great deal of money locally on buying materials, payroll, etc (like the coming infusion of more federal grant & contract money for university-based research). You want to profit from the new flow of money, but then so others in your community.
Fortunately for you, like the Big 10 you & your business associates are richer, have more capital, have more resources. You also have a great advantage in that you have the most expertise and experience in regard to the investments that are anticipated (with strong reasons) to be those that will bring the optimal return--enable you to get the biggest share possible of the additional money being brought into the community by the new industry.
Still, some potential competitors could put together alliances that would increase their prospects, probably to your detriment. One of the things they could do would be to beat you to partnering with other firms that have a great deal of the most relevant expertise & experience (in this instance a university like Pitt with its exception capabilities for medical research--which will be the most important category of the additional federal grants, contracts, patent fees, etc).
Of course you could throw in your lot with some small firms without much capital, much facilities, little expertise or experience--you could choose to partner with guys who are bringing very little to the enterprise compared to what you are investing & the resources you are providing. They aren't likely to contribute more than a small fraction of what the present partners will--but they will get an equal share of the gains AND THEY END UP as equal partners in what you and the original partners have already built & created over the years.
Joining the BT for Pitt (or Rutgers) makes mutual sense. Yes, they will profit nicely from BT membership, and they are getting a bargain in becoming the new BUT EQUAL member of the consortium. BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, Pitt or Rutgers is bringing not just valuable resources vastly aiding the consortium in getting a lion's share of that new money coming into the community, but they are adding significant highly valued existing facilities, resources & expertise. In short, blunt truth, Pitt or Rutgers would carry their own weight; making Mizzou or Nebraska would be like GIVING your deadbeat brother-in-law an equal share oand endangers your reputation in the community for competence, excellence, performance.
Or to put it in a more mundane illustration: would you prefer to play poker with a guy who doesn't pay for his chips but will get a share of every pot no matter whether he loses or wins---or a guy who pays the fair price for his chips and will share his earnings?
Footnote: and yes, Cornell IS one of the many universities about which the BT staff is gathering information...of course that doesn't make Cornell a feasible potential BT member. It means simply that the BT like any sensible firm gathers adequate market information. And I'm positive about this because I heard is from former work associates in the Office of Post-Secondary Education of the US Dept of Education (which monitors such matters as the operations of college athletic conferences routinely; it would be a scandal if the "bureaucrats" did not exercise oversight where billions of dollars of tax-supported Pell Grants, etc were involved).
Last edited:
tiggerhawk
Well-Known Member
Much appreciate Palpatine's contribution of the list of major research funding recipients.
I would emphasize not just the presence of Johns Hopkins at the very top of the list (doesn't hurt to be near the nation's capitol) but the prominence on the list of the other potential CIC members the BT would like to partner with--Washington-St Louis, Cornell, Case-Western, Carnegie-Mellon as well as Pitt (high on the list of the universities that have mutual interest and are likely targets for BT expansion).
The data should also be analyzed in the context of what is motivating the advanced timetable for expansion by the BT--the pending huge increase in federal government funding for university-base research. And a particular dimension of that context is worth noting especially: the primary, earliest category of that funding (in which the federal government will be joined by foundations and the health industries) clearly will be medical programs, med technology & engineering, pharmacology. patient care methods, etc. Which is why the schools like Johns Hopkins, etc are the BT's favorite wet dream, though they are not feasible targets now and it is not evident that CIC membership would be worthwhile to any or all of them, or enough to outweigh concerns about autonomy.
Pitt is a totally different matter--not just because it has major college athletic programs, but it is much more a large undergraduate teaching institution...like the current BT member schools.
The same is true of Rutgers, which does not equal Pitt as a recipient of research funding nor have the impressive of medical research capabilities of Pitt. The attractiveness of Rutgers to the BT are its other unique advantages: it is a state university in an affluent state with a political climate favorable to increased state investment in capital plant & facilities. with the means to finance top staff and willingly share in the costs of future BT consortium facilities & programs; even more of critical importance to the BT is that adding Rutgers would place the BT directly into the NYC nerve center of American business, banking, media, foundations. It probably is impossible to overstate how much the BT leadership lusts to become a major player in the nation's economic, educational, and cultural center.
I would emphasize not just the presence of Johns Hopkins at the very top of the list (doesn't hurt to be near the nation's capitol) but the prominence on the list of the other potential CIC members the BT would like to partner with--Washington-St Louis, Cornell, Case-Western, Carnegie-Mellon as well as Pitt (high on the list of the universities that have mutual interest and are likely targets for BT expansion).
The data should also be analyzed in the context of what is motivating the advanced timetable for expansion by the BT--the pending huge increase in federal government funding for university-base research. And a particular dimension of that context is worth noting especially: the primary, earliest category of that funding (in which the federal government will be joined by foundations and the health industries) clearly will be medical programs, med technology & engineering, pharmacology. patient care methods, etc. Which is why the schools like Johns Hopkins, etc are the BT's favorite wet dream, though they are not feasible targets now and it is not evident that CIC membership would be worthwhile to any or all of them, or enough to outweigh concerns about autonomy.
Pitt is a totally different matter--not just because it has major college athletic programs, but it is much more a large undergraduate teaching institution...like the current BT member schools.
The same is true of Rutgers, which does not equal Pitt as a recipient of research funding nor have the impressive of medical research capabilities of Pitt. The attractiveness of Rutgers to the BT are its other unique advantages: it is a state university in an affluent state with a political climate favorable to increased state investment in capital plant & facilities. with the means to finance top staff and willingly share in the costs of future BT consortium facilities & programs; even more of critical importance to the BT is that adding Rutgers would place the BT directly into the NYC nerve center of American business, banking, media, foundations. It probably is impossible to overstate how much the BT leadership lusts to become a major player in the nation's economic, educational, and cultural center.
tiggerhawk
Well-Known Member
True, it would make more sense than Mizzou or Nebraska--particularly because of Moo U's prominence in other fields that are going to be the focus of major increased government & corporate research funding--agribusiness will continue to become more important to America's trade and monetary balances; as the portents of the end of the fossil-fuel splurge draw closer, the key role of Iowa State in the development of alternative energy--especially converting trash & agricultural waste to sustainable energy will become even more critical.
There are a few problems that I would see in this regard. Moo would be a second BT school in a small, less-populated state, one that historically has given such a high priority to education (including post-secondary ed) that politically it seems improbable given the press of so many competing needs like revitalizing Iowa cities & small towns, accelerating economic devopment, most of all funding the kinds of investments (IAT education) that will greatly enhance the quality of life in Iowa--probably along with investments in human capital the other imperative precondition for those other principle objectives like revitalizing communities and speeding economic development.
It isn't at all clear that Iowa State, given the limited resources of the state, could muster the potential advantages to bring to BT membership or establish the same mutual interest that schools like Pitt, Rutgers, Colorado, Maryland--even Nebraska in the distant future (Nebraska has miles and years to travel to get to where Moo is now--but Nebraska has one very valuable asset--the same one that is why the U of Washington-Seattle is close to the top of the list of research funding recipients--can you say Paul Allen? Warren Buffett? the other men of vast wealth out of Omaha, the city with the highest per capita millioniares in America? These are home-town guys very much into philantrophy, either of whom could double Nebraska's endowment by giving it their pocket change. The density of Nebraskans' its political mind is a huge barrier to pulling NU up from academic mediocrity. Raises the interesting question: must being brain-dead continue to be fatal if your rich kids will spend what is necessary to make you functionally-intelligent?)
