(07-30-2015 11:27 AM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Kansas basketball doesn't move the TV meter nationally the way that a mediocre football game does. The TV ratings for basketball games outside of the NCAA tournament are atrocious compared to football.

Did you know that in total viewership, college basketball outdraws college football on national TV? In 2013 (the last time I complied all of the numbers), 747 million people watched a college football game on national TV (total number of views). 797 million watched a college basketball game. Further, 356 million people watched a regular season college football game: 558 million watched a regular season college basketball game.


Despite what you hear repeated over and over, college basketball has a HUGE value to networks, because it is daily viewing. It does not have the full value of college football, because TV shows sell advertising and exponential rates based on viewership, but there is huge value. Ask the Big Ten Network, who owes its existence to Big Ten basketball. It is a fallacy, usually perpetrated by fans of a football school, that there is no value in basketball. There is a reason why the most sought after teams in the ACC, are much more known for basketball success than football, and why Kansas is on the Big Ten radar, and not other more successful football programs.

(07-30-2015 10:43 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 05:46 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 04:32 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  The BIG is going to add East Coast schools next. Kansas is a low population state with no added value in TV revenue. Every conference knows the winning formula now and it lies in getting into as many high population states as possible.

Being in small markets becomes irrelevant when you're talking about a national brand like Kansas basketball.

I don't know about "irrelevant," but to back up your post who is the most sought after school in all of realignment? I will give you a hint: they sit in what is likely the smallest market of any school in the P5.

(07-30-2015 10:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  There is no logical basis which can exclude VT from the AAU while including UVA.

UVA has been a member for over 100 years. They were the first new member to join after the initial founding. Regardless of current research expenditures, comparing what a potential member has done to a current member doesn't mean they should be in. That is like saying Cincinnati has had a better football program than Wake Forest for the past 15 years, so it's politics that they are in the ACC and Cincinnati isn't. That is not a fair comparison.

I have never paid attention to their research numbers, nor compared them, so I do not know this to be the case. But I would guess if you looked at research over a number of years,. Virginia Tech probably would not be as high as Virginia on average. They have picked it up over the past few years in an effort to ramp up their research. If they are starting new projects, their spending will be higher in a given year. A school like Virginia who has been doing it for so long, may not need to spend as much in a given year to keep up their work. But even past that, just doing more than a current member does not immediately equate you as member eligible. In any organization. Doesn't mean it's "politics."

Maybe.

But I'm not going to look all that up. Instead, I'm going to claim it's due to politics. And I'll most likely be right, because, being the cynic that I am about human nature, when in doubt if you guess the reason is due to some illogical, human emotional reason, you'll usually be right.

(07-30-2015 11:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 12:54 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 09:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 09:11 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 05:57 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Right now, the next two ACC schools that the BIG covets (UVa & UNC), do not appear to be willing to move. There are no other schools in the EAST that come close to the desirability of these two. That leaves expanding to the West. Mizzu was lost to the SEC and is probably untouchable at this point. KU and OU are the next two logical choices.

Probably not true. Virginia Tech is a top 15 engineering school, great academics, large alumni base and located in a key state for BTN expansion. All it lacks is AAU status, but it definitely has the research gravitas that the B1G is looking for. Look at its peer institutions on the VT website - VT academics at least thinks their peers are primarily B1G schools. In many ways, VT looks more like a B1G school than UVA, which thinks of itself as an eastern liberal arts college and Ivy League wanna-be.

UVa might be pretentious, but it's still a great research university. In the recent CWUR university ranking, for example, UVa is ahead of every Big Ten school except Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

UVA is clearly a great research school, but much of it relates to the medical field. Nothing wrong with that but B1G schools have a heavy focus on engineering, computers and natural sciences. Nevertheless, UVA is still AAU and very much of a B1G expansion candidate if they were willing.

My point is simply that VT can also be an expansion candidate and fits as well or better for some factors. I visited both schools when my kids were looking at colleges. VT is the larger school and has a larger alumni base. UVA has an east coast, liberal arts mindset and aspires to be, and is, a "public Ivy". VT looks and feels much more like the B1G schools we visited. VT aspires to be the best engineering school and sees the B1G engineering heavy weights, like Illinois, Purdue, Michigan and Wisconsin, as the kind of peer institutions it wants to be around. Except for AAU status, VT would be near the top of the B1G list.

The research rankings of Big Ten schools are also driven by med schools. Medical research funding has an outsized influence right now. I think every Big Ten university except Purdue has a med school, and of the 26 U.S. universities on that CWUR list that are ahead of Purdue, all have a med school except MIT, Cal, Princeton, Caltech, and Texas (who will not be an exception for much longer b/c they are opening a UT med school in Austin next year).

Life Sciences research is by far and away where the big money is at. Almost every major research school has a large chunk of their dollars coming in for Life Sciences research.

Having a medical school isn't necessarily the prerequisite to getting those grants. You can do medical research without training new clinicians. The two things are very much separate. Though if you want to experiment on human subjects, I imagine you have to have a clinical environment.

(07-30-2015 11:49 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 11:27 AM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Kansas basketball doesn't move the TV meter nationally the way that a mediocre football game does. The TV ratings for basketball games outside of the NCAA tournament are atrocious compared to football.

Did you know that in total viewership, college basketball outdraws college football on national TV? In 2013 (the last time I complied all of the numbers), 747 million people watched a college football game on national TV (total number of views). 797 million watched a college basketball game. Further, 356 million people watched a regular season college football game: 558 million watched a regular season college basketball game.


Despite what you hear repeated over and over, college basketball has a HUGE value to networks, because it is daily viewing. It does not have the full value of college football, because TV shows sell advertising and exponential rates based on viewership, but there is huge value. Ask the Big Ten Network, who owes its existence to Big Ten basketball. It is a fallacy, usually perpetrated by fans of a football school, that there is no value in basketball. There is a reason why the most sought after teams in the ACC, are much more known for basketball success than football, and why Kansas is on the Big Ten radar, and not other more successful football programs.

If Kansas makes it into a better conference, it 100% won't be due to athletics.

(07-30-2015 12:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe.

But I'm not going to look all that up. Instead, I'm going to claim it's due to politics. And I'll most likely be right, because, being the cynic that I am about human nature, when in doubt if you guess the reason is due to some illogical, human emotional reason, you'll usually be right.

So now you admit what we already know is true. You make **** up, ***** when people point out that your are wrong, make a statement that you are right, and expect other so believe, then admit you don't even care if your statements are accurate.

This much we can tell, because we have actually read the BS you type. I just wanted to caption it since you have now admitted it.

(07-30-2015 12:06 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 11:49 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 11:27 AM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Kansas basketball doesn't move the TV meter nationally the way that a mediocre football game does. The TV ratings for basketball games outside of the NCAA tournament are atrocious compared to football.

Did you know that in total viewership, college basketball outdraws college football on national TV? In 2013 (the last time I complied all of the numbers), 747 million people watched a college football game on national TV (total number of views). 797 million watched a college basketball game. Further, 356 million people watched a regular season college football game: 558 million watched a regular season college basketball game.


Despite what you hear repeated over and over, college basketball has a HUGE value to networks, because it is daily viewing. It does not have the full value of college football, because TV shows sell advertising and exponential rates based on viewership, but there is huge value. Ask the Big Ten Network, who owes its existence to Big Ten basketball. It is a fallacy, usually perpetrated by fans of a football school, that there is no value in basketball. There is a reason why the most sought after teams in the ACC, are much more known for basketball success than football, and why Kansas is on the Big Ten radar, and not other more successful football programs.

If Kansas makes it into a better conference, it 100% won't be due to athletics.

I am sorry. Weren't you telling me how basketball has no value? I don't have a big affinity for Kansas one way or another, but there is a reason why they have been mentioned as a candidate for ALL FOUR P4 conferences.

(07-30-2015 12:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 11:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 12:54 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 09:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 09:11 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Probably not true. Virginia Tech is a top 15 engineering school, great academics, large alumni base and located in a key state for BTN expansion. All it lacks is AAU status, but it definitely has the research gravitas that the B1G is looking for. Look at its peer institutions on the VT website - VT academics at least thinks their peers are primarily B1G schools. In many ways, VT looks more like a B1G school than UVA, which thinks of itself as an eastern liberal arts college and Ivy League wanna-be.

UVa might be pretentious, but it's still a great research university. In the recent CWUR university ranking, for example, UVa is ahead of every Big Ten school except Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

UVA is clearly a great research school, but much of it relates to the medical field. Nothing wrong with that but B1G schools have a heavy focus on engineering, computers and natural sciences. Nevertheless, UVA is still AAU and very much of a B1G expansion candidate if they were willing.

My point is simply that VT can also be an expansion candidate and fits as well or better for some factors. I visited both schools when my kids were looking at colleges. VT is the larger school and has a larger alumni base. UVA has an east coast, liberal arts mindset and aspires to be, and is, a "public Ivy". VT looks and feels much more like the B1G schools we visited. VT aspires to be the best engineering school and sees the B1G engineering heavy weights, like Illinois, Purdue, Michigan and Wisconsin, as the kind of peer institutions it wants to be around. Except for AAU status, VT would be near the top of the B1G list.

The research rankings of Big Ten schools are also driven by med schools. Medical research funding has an outsized influence right now. I think every Big Ten university except Purdue has a med school, and of the 26 U.S. universities on that CWUR list that are ahead of Purdue, all have a med school except MIT, Cal, Princeton, Caltech, and Texas (who will not be an exception for much longer b/c they are opening a UT med school in Austin next year).

Life Sciences research is by far and away where the big money is at. Almost every major research school has a large chunk of their dollars coming in for Life Sciences research.

Having a medical school isn't necessarily the prerequisite to getting those grants. You can do medical research without training new clinicians. The two things are very much separate. Though if you want to experiment on human subjects, I imagine you have to have a clinical environment.

The fact that over 80% of the top U.S. research universities have a medical school means there is an extremely strong correlation between having a med school and hauling in truckloads of life sciences grant money. Even more so when you consider that the very few exceptions are all more than 100 years old and have been elite research universities for nearly all of that time.

(07-30-2015 12:10 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 12:06 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 11:49 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 11:27 AM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Kansas basketball doesn't move the TV meter nationally the way that a mediocre football game does. The TV ratings for basketball games outside of the NCAA tournament are atrocious compared to football.

Did you know that in total viewership, college basketball outdraws college football on national TV? In 2013 (the last time I complied all of the numbers), 747 million people watched a college football game on national TV (total number of views). 797 million watched a college basketball game. Further, 356 million people watched a regular season college football game: 558 million watched a regular season college basketball game.


Despite what you hear repeated over and over, college basketball has a HUGE value to networks, because it is daily viewing. It does not have the full value of college football, because TV shows sell advertising and exponential rates based on viewership, but there is huge value. Ask the Big Ten Network, who owes its existence to Big Ten basketball. It is a fallacy, usually perpetrated by fans of a football school, that there is no value in basketball. There is a reason why the most sought after teams in the ACC, are much more known for basketball success than football, and why Kansas is on the Big Ten radar, and not other more successful football programs.

If Kansas makes it into a better conference, it 100% won't be due to athletics.

I am sorry. Weren't you telling me how basketball has no value? I don't have a big affinity for Kansas one way or another, but there is a reason why they have been mentioned as a candidate for ALL FOUR P4 conferences.

They may have been at one time, but the landscape has changed. I doubt the BIG would take Nebraska knowing what they know now. Kansas has no value to any power conference outside of academics (which I have no idea if they are good at that either). Conference Networks just don't work in the favor of small state teams like previous market based deals did.

(07-30-2015 12:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 12:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe.

But I'm not going to look all that up. Instead, I'm going to claim it's due to politics. And I'll most likely be right, because, being the cynic that I am about human nature, when in doubt if you guess the reason is due to some illogical, human emotional reason, you'll usually be right.

So now you admit what we already know is true. You make **** up, ***** when people point out that your are wrong, make a statement that you are right, and expect other so believe, then admit you don't even care if your statements are accurate.

This much we can tell, because we have actually read the BS you type. I just wanted to caption it since you have now admitted it.

I've admitted nothing of the sort you claim.

You read what you want to read.

(07-30-2015 12:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 12:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 11:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 12:54 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 09:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  UVa might be pretentious, but it's still a great research university. In the recent CWUR university ranking, for example, UVa is ahead of every Big Ten school except Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

UVA is clearly a great research school, but much of it relates to the medical field. Nothing wrong with that but B1G schools have a heavy focus on engineering, computers and natural sciences. Nevertheless, UVA is still AAU and very much of a B1G expansion candidate if they were willing.

My point is simply that VT can also be an expansion candidate and fits as well or better for some factors. I visited both schools when my kids were looking at colleges. VT is the larger school and has a larger alumni base. UVA has an east coast, liberal arts mindset and aspires to be, and is, a "public Ivy". VT looks and feels much more like the B1G schools we visited. VT aspires to be the best engineering school and sees the B1G engineering heavy weights, like Illinois, Purdue, Michigan and Wisconsin, as the kind of peer institutions it wants to be around. Except for AAU status, VT would be near the top of the B1G list.

The research rankings of Big Ten schools are also driven by med schools. Medical research funding has an outsized influence right now. I think every Big Ten university except Purdue has a med school, and of the 26 U.S. universities on that CWUR list that are ahead of Purdue, all have a med school except MIT, Cal, Princeton, Caltech, and Texas (who will not be an exception for much longer b/c they are opening a UT med school in Austin next year).

Life Sciences research is by far and away where the big money is at. Almost every major research school has a large chunk of their dollars coming in for Life Sciences research.

Having a medical school isn't necessarily the prerequisite to getting those grants. You can do medical research without training new clinicians. The two things are very much separate. Though if you want to experiment on human subjects, I imagine you have to have a clinical environment.

The fact that over 80% of the top U.S. research universities have a medical school means there is an extremely strong correlation between having a med school and hauling in truckloads of life sciences grant money. Even more so when you consider that the very few exceptions are all more than 100 years old and have been elite research universities for nearly all of that time.

One can study if stem cells with a certain gene modification will divide and multiply at a faster rate than some baseline, without the university having a medical school.

I made that example up, but you get the idea. You just need a lab. You don't need a clinic environment with clinicians-in-training and clinician instructors present.


But it's a moot point, I guess.

(07-30-2015 07:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The Kansas is irrelevant because of football comments miss a vital point.

Kansas is regularly mentioned in the "to the Big 10" rumors. OU is the one publicly saber rattling.

Let's hop into the Wayback Machine.

Big 10 is looking at expanding. Nebraska gets mentioned but remains mostly silent, while Missouri is publicly saber rattling.

If (and it is a huge if) there is serious talk of expansion going on, I think the evidence points to Kansas being closer to being selected than OU.

I agree with your historical notes - but I don't know if Kansas' silence is "evidence" of the same thing happening again. Certainly there was plenty of posturing by Rutgers before they had an invite and they got in.

I believe that if Kansas gets in - then so does Oklahoma. If Kansas doesn't sign, then Oklahoma isn't offered a spot in the BIG10 either. I'm not convinced the BIG10 goes west - but if they do, these would be the two properties they would most want. I don't think the BIG10 wants the Texas headache -even with their market $$$.

If KU and Oklahoma jump to the BIG10, then I think Texas jumps ship too. Then the Big12 reloads with what it can (BYU, Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston, BoiseSt) and becomes the de facto new BigEast FB conference (a conference a full step below the other P5 but still one of them).
NORTH: BoiseSt, BYU, IowaSt, KState, Cincinnati, WVU
SOUTH: OklahomaSt, Memphis, Baylor, TexasTech, TCU, Houston

The Kansas/Oklahoma pairing is a great combo of valued properties for the BIG10: one of the top 10 BB programs and one of the top FB programs out there. Their value is enhanced by the BIG10 already having Nebraska (the return of the Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry - often with the Big10-west on the line) and the fact that the BIG10 is one of the premiere BB conferences already (Indiana, MichSt, Wisconsin etc - and now Kansas).