Conference Realignment Updates

Donate To GopherHole

nitramnaed said:

FSU makes major move towards gaining Big Ten invite​

Working on AAU certification by 2026.

flywareagle.com

FSU makes major move towards gaining Big Ten invite

Conference realignment won't see any teams break away from the ACC anytime soon, with the August 15 deadline to announce intentions of leaving likely to come an
flywareagle.com flywareagle.com
Click to expand...
Guessing Florida state wasn’t doing this to join the big 12

I just want it to all be over and resettled at this point so schedules can be normalized and rivalries can be developed
 


GopherFanatic19 said:
I hope FSU and Clemson join
Click to expand...
I know that Clemson is trying to increase their research expenditures to reach AAU requirements, but it's a pretty high bar. Nebby, I know is trying to get back into the AAU after they were given the boot in 2011. I'm sure they have been given some type of ultimatum on this.
I know people have mocked me about this on the board, but I believe this goes beyond sports for the B1G academic leaders.
No school is going to get into the B1G without AAU membership.
 

GopherFanatic19 said:
I hope FSU and Clemson join
Click to expand...
Florida State and North Carolina or Virginia is my guess

If the conference presidents want Clemson it may end up being all 4 of them. But 22 is an awkward number.
So if it was all 4 the I think they’d look to add 2 more between Utah, Colorado, Arizona state, and Stanford

Obviously notre dame probably gets first dibs of all those.

They also could take all 8 of those + Notre Dame + Kansas. Would be 28 and a nice round number.
nitramnaed said:
I know that Clemson is trying to increase their research expenditures to reach AAU requirements, but it's a pretty high bar. Nebby, I know is trying to get back into the AAU after they were given the boot in 2011. I'm sure they have been given some type of ultimatum on this.
I know people have mocked me about this on the board, but I believe this goes beyond sports for the B1G academic leaders.
No school is going to get into the B1G without AAU membership.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the conference would boot Nebraska but it would be fun.

Florida State + Texas A&M + North Carolina + Virginia + Georgia Tech + Notre Dame

24 team league:
4 divisions of 6.
11 game conference schedule. Play your division + an entire division rotating every year.
Top 2 go to CCG regardless of record.
You play 5 teams every year + every team in the conference home and home in 6 years.

Oregon, Washington, USC, UCLA, Texas A&M, Notre Dame

Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois, Northwestern

Penn State, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Maryland

Ohio state, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers


I like speculation. It’s fun, so everyone take it easy on these posts
 


Notre Dame and FSU and see how 20 works for the short term.
 

Interesting. I don't see FSU high on B1G list even if it becomes AAU certified. I see at least Irish, UNC, Cal and Stanford ahead of FSU. My two cents.
 

nitramnaed said:
No school is going to get into the B1G without AAU membership.
Click to expand...

Yep, just looked into the membership today. Nebraska is the only one of the 18 not included. That's pretty impressive considering there are only 71 schools in the organization and more than a few are not known for their sports teams.
 




There's a reason Notre Dame got AAU membership last year. They want to keep their options open. All the people on this board that said it made no difference if Notre Dame was AAU or not because they were "Notre Dame" are dinks.
 

TwistingMyMelon said:
Yep, just looked into the membership today. Nebraska is the only one of the 18 not included. That's pretty impressive considering there are only 71 schools in the organization and more than a few are not known for their sports teams.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but Nebraska lost their membership because all the medical research money is in Omaha. They tried to carry the load with agricultural research and that didn't cut it. Same with Iowa State.
 

I just looked it up, and Clemson's goal for AAU research funding is 2035. Yikes!
I don't think we'll see the paw print in the B1G any time soon.
 

It’s become just another seedy business. Now that it’s become all about money the gloves are coming off.
 



Someone explain how top tier university research is grafted to a low brow Frankenstinian multi-billion dollar entertainment biz. Explain it to someone from, say, a foreign country.
 

TwistingMyMelon said:
Interesting that FSU isn't a member but Florida and South Florida are.
Click to expand...
USF has rapidly become a serious player in medicine and research. Probably more respected academically than anyone in the SEC except maybe Vandy, and now Texas. Per wiki:

USF is one of the fastest growing research universities in the nation, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.[9] In the 2021 fiscal year, the university was awarded more than $590 million in research awards.[6][110] The Intellectual Property Owners Association ranked USF among the top ten universities in the world granted U.S. utility patents in 2011.[9] USF is also a member of the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program and the National Sea Grant College Program.[111][112]


[edit]
USF Health consists of the Morsani College of Medicine, College of Nursing, Taneja College of Pharmacy, College of Public Health, the School of Biomedical Sciences (within the College of Arts and Sciences), the School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, and the USF Physician's Group.[113] USF Health researchers work in the fields of cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, prosthetics, heart health, genomics, and more.[114] The College of Nursing ranks first in Florida for universities receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health.[9]
Click to expand...
 

So did Nebraska join the Big Ten before they lost their AAU membership? It seems to have happened around the same time.
 

nitramnaed said:
I could be wrong, but Nebraska lost their membership because all the medical research money is in Omaha. They tried to carry the load with agricultural research and that didn't cut it. Same with Iowa State.
Click to expand...
Correct. They miss out on the medical research and ag research is not as highly regarded.
 

Some guy said:
Florida State and North Carolina or Virginia is my guess

If the conference presidents want Clemson it may end up being all 4 of them. But 22 is an awkward number.
So if it was all 4 the I think they’d look to add 2 more between Utah, Colorado, Arizona state, and Stanford

Obviously notre dame probably gets first dibs of all those.

They also could take all 8 of those + Notre Dame + Kansas. Would be 28 and a nice round number.

I don’t think the conference would boot Nebraska but it would be fun.

Florida State + Texas A&M + North Carolina + Virginia + Georgia Tech + Notre Dame

24 team league:
4 divisions of 6.
11 game conference schedule. Play your division + an entire division rotating every year.
Top 2 go to CCG regardless of record.
You play 5 teams every year + every team in the conference home and home in 6 years.

Oregon, Washington, USC, UCLA, Texas A&M, Notre Dame

Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois, Northwestern

Penn State, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Maryland

Ohio state, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers


I like speculation. It’s fun, so everyone take it easy on these posts
Click to expand...
I like it. But as conferences grow in size and actual crossover games become less frequent, I see the need (and the want $$$) for at least a conference semi-final round. You've got four divisions -highest rated plays lowest rated division champ. But then OSU/Mich and OR/TAM/ND/USC complain about being left out while unrated Iowa/Wisconsin is in the semi-finals 9 out of every 10 years so then two wildcard teams are added and the top 2 rated teams get bye weeks.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Notre Dame and FSU and see how 20 works for the short term.
Click to expand...
Would be ideal.

West:
Oregon
Washington
USC
UCLA
Notre Dame

Central:
Nebraska
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
illinois

Rust Belt:
Michigan
Michigan state
Ohio state
Indiana
Purdue

East:
Northwestern
Penn state
Florida State
Maryland
Rutgers

Play your group plus one entire other group per year
 

PMWinSTP said:
Interesting. I don't see FSU high on B1G list even if it becomes AAU certified. I see at least Irish, UNC, Cal and Stanford ahead of FSU. My two cents.
Click to expand...
Cal and Stanford bring zero athletic value, IMo

Only value they might bring is if notre dame forces you to take one to join
 

swede2 said:
I like it. But as conferences grow in size and actual crossover games become less frequent, I see the need (and the want $$$) for at least a conference semi-final round. You've got four divisions -highest rated plays lowest rated division champ. But then OSU/Mich and OR/TAM/ND/USC complain about being left out while unrated Iowa/Wisconsin is in the semi-finals 9 out of every 10 years so then two wildcard teams are added and the top 2 rated teams get bye weeks.
Click to expand...
I don’t see scheduling divisions the same as divisions. But the conference needs round robin scheduling to have authenticity to a champ.

If you have 4 divisions where there are two closed loop round robins in the schedule you eliminate the chance of an unbeaten team being left out.

Nobody cares if the Mn/NE/IA/WI division is weaker if they aren’t guaranteed a spot in the title game by being forced to play the entirety of another division every year .
 




More insanity. This is what social anarchy looks like, driven by greed, and with no local government to keep order (the NCAA is now fatally neutered).
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Someone explain how top tier university research is grafted to a low brow Frankenstinian multi-billion dollar entertainment biz. Explain it to someone from, say, a foreign country.
Click to expand...
Explain which part? Why AAU membership is still a requirement to join the conference? Or why AAU membership got tied to conference membership in the first place? The answer is simple for both.

The Big Ten Academic Alliance (formerly named the Committee on Institutional Cooperation) was formed in 1958, including all existing conference members and the University of Chicago (a founding member of the conference who withdrew in 1946). At the time, inviting just the conference members was likely just out of convenience. There was likely already cooperation between the schools at the time and this just formalized it a bit more.

Why did they do this? Because at the time, sports were not a money maker for the universities, research grants were. So if sharing research access, among the other things the CIC enabled, meant more research grants from the government then it made a lot of sense to do.

At a certain point, the decision was likely made to make AAU membership a requirement to join the conference as a full member. Why? Because any school joining the conference would want in on the CIC, and as the existing members you don't want to dilute the quality of the research shared.

So what started as likely a decision of convenience, turned into a requirement for new members.

As for why it's still a requirement, it's also simple. Research STILL brings in more money to the universities than athletics. Each year, Big Ten Academic Alliance schools engage in $10 billion in funded research. Compare that to the $880 million in revenue the conference made from athletics. Research brings in more money by a factor of roughly 10:1.

You may ask "Why not just split the 2? Make joining the conference as a full member for sports not automatically grant membership to the academic alliance.". While that is a potential route they could go (and should athletics ever surpass research in the money that it brings in to schools, almost certainly a route that will be pursued), at the moment it's too much hassle. Any school considering joining the conference for athletics is likely going to make sure academic alliance membership comes with, because it means a lot of potential research money, and will likely make it a deal breaker. Further, if we admit someone, and then try to revoke their membership in the athletic alliance that is just begging for a costly lawsuit to happen (and is likely at least part of the reason Nebraska was not kicked from the academic alliance when they lost AAU membership).
 

Taji34 said:
Explain which part? Why AAU membership is still a requirement to join the conference? Or why AAU membership got tied to conference membership in the first place? The answer is simple for both.

The Big Ten Academic Alliance (formerly named the Committee on Institutional Cooperation) was formed in 1958, including all existing conference members and the University of Chicago (a founding member of the conference who withdrew in 1946). At the time, inviting just the conference members was likely just out of convenience. There was likely already cooperation between the schools at the time and this just formalized it a bit more.

Why did they do this? Because at the time, sports were not a money maker for the universities, research grants were. So if sharing research access, among the other things the CIC enabled, meant more research grants from the government then it made a lot of sense to do.

At a certain point, the decision was likely made to make AAU membership a requirement to join the conference as a full member. Why? Because any school joining the conference would want in on the CIC, and as the existing members you don't want to dilute the quality of the research shared.

So what started as likely a decision of convenience, turned into a requirement for new members.

As for why it's still a requirement, it's also simple. Research STILL brings in more money to the universities than athletics. Each year, Big Ten Academic Alliance schools engage in $10 billion in funded research. Compare that to the $880 million in revenue the conference made from athletics. Research brings in more money by a factor of roughly 10:1.

You may ask "Why not just split the 2? Make joining the conference as a full member for sports not automatically grant membership to the academic alliance.". While that is a potential route they could go (and should athletics ever surpass research in the money that it brings in to schools, almost certainly a route that will be pursued), at the moment it's too much hassle. Any school considering joining the conference for athletics is likely going to make sure academic alliance membership comes with, because it means a lot of potential research money, and will likely make it a deal breaker. Further, if we admit someone, and then try to revoke their membership in the athletic alliance that is just begging for a costly lawsuit to happen (and is likely at least part of the reason Nebraska was not kicked from the academic alliance when they lost AAU membership).
Click to expand...
I've asked this question and still have yet to see a satisfactory answer. Too much "hassle"? That's a conclusion without explanation.

There's already precedence - Chicago which doesn't participate in the B1G athletic conference. And Nebraska, who isn't AAU.

If AAU was paramount, California and Stanford would be members.

And no B1G school would turn down a research consortium with MIT or other first rate academic institutions because they don't pay B1G athletics.

The rest of the world has moved on from the idea that college athletics are academic endeavors. B1G president's should too.
 
Last edited:

Some guy said:
Cal and Stanford bring zero athletic value, IMo

Only value they might bring is if notre dame forces you to take one to join
Click to expand...
Cal and Sandord were there for the taking, and probably for cheap. There might be some athletic value but apparently, no media value.
 

Taji34 said:
Explain which part? Why AAU membership is still a requirement to join the conference? Or why AAU membership got tied to conference membership in the first place? The answer is simple for both.

The Big Ten Academic Alliance (formerly named the Committee on Institutional Cooperation) was formed in 1958, including all existing conference members and the University of Chicago (a founding member of the conference who withdrew in 1946). At the time, inviting just the conference members was likely just out of convenience. There was likely already cooperation between the schools at the time and this just formalized it a bit more.

Why did they do this? Because at the time, sports were not a money maker for the universities, research grants were. So if sharing research access, among the other things the CIC enabled, meant more research grants from the government then it made a lot of sense to do.

At a certain point, the decision was likely made to make AAU membership a requirement to join the conference as a full member. Why? Because any school joining the conference would want in on the CIC, and as the existing members you don't want to dilute the quality of the research shared.

So what started as likely a decision of convenience, turned into a requirement for new members.

As for why it's still a requirement, it's also simple. Research STILL brings in more money to the universities than athletics. Each year, Big Ten Academic Alliance schools engage in $10 billion in funded research. Compare that to the $880 million in revenue the conference made from athletics. Research brings in more money by a factor of roughly 10:1.

You may ask "Why not just split the 2? Make joining the conference as a full member for sports not automatically grant membership to the academic alliance.". While that is a potential route they could go (and should athletics ever surpass research in the money that it brings in to schools, almost certainly a route that will be pursued), at the moment it's too much hassle. Any school considering joining the conference for athletics is likely going to make sure academic alliance membership comes with, because it means a lot of potential research money, and will likely make it a deal breaker. Further, if we admit someone, and then try to revoke their membership in the athletic alliance that is just begging for a costly lawsuit to happen (and is likely at least part of the reason Nebraska was not kicked from the academic alliance when they lost AAU membership).
Click to expand...

I’m aware of the background. If say, Nebraska, or Podunk State joined the conference as a non- AAU member that wouldn’t affect the grant awards or research revenue a single dollar. Michigan would be just fine. A made up problem.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom