(04-21-2022 02:32 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  These transitions out don’t just happen. There are years of internal discussions and pressures applied. Some folks talk about the B1G…heck, wasn’t it some PAC folks who were mocking ISU indirectly some time back? It wouldn’t surprise me if those snobs out west blew it again turning down ISU if they approached the PAC, and the PAC then dismisses them as “not matching the cultural profile.”

How would have the Pac-12 have blown it by not inviting Iowa State? They actually don't fit the profile of that league at all culturally and geographically. Plus, even if you could argue ISU was somehow a fit, how would Iowa State have made the Pac-12 any money compared to Kansas, TCU, Texas Tech, etc.? At least the Texas-based schools have the argument that they're bringing in a huge population area with major TV markets and recruiting areas.

Iowa State is a fine athletic department with a very good fan base and solid academics. However, I'm at a loss as to how they'd be valued highly in power conference realignment when they don't have a national brand name, aren't located in a major population area, and have a higher profile in-state rival that's a flagship school in the Big Ten.

(04-21-2022 03:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 02:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  That would potentially open a possibility for another invite not too long after. Off the top of my head I could see these being considered:

Miami (FL)
Virginia Tech
Arizona State
North Carolina State
Georgia
South Florida

I don't follow academia that closely, though. My guess is the next invite would come from the South, as there aren't any serious candidates in the West or North, other than ASU. I also think the chances of Nebraska getting back in got even slimmer.

I do wonder if the likes of Brandeis, Missouri, Oregon or Kansas are watching their backs right now.

It’s funny that the only league with an established promotion/relegation system is AAU.

It is cut-throat. Last go around, Syracuse left voluntarily and Nebraska got voted out. Now, Iowa State is leaving voluntarily but maybe there are other schools that are being discussed. The announcement stresses how research funding has shifted from agriculture to medicine in the 65 years since ISU was first admitted to the AAU.

(04-21-2022 03:16 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 03:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 02:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  That would potentially open a possibility for another invite not too long after. Off the top of my head I could see these being considered:

Miami (FL)
Virginia Tech
Arizona State
North Carolina State
Georgia
South Florida

I don't follow academia that closely, though. My guess is the next invite would come from the South, as there aren't any serious candidates in the West or North, other than ASU. I also think the chances of Nebraska getting back in got even slimmer.

I do wonder if the likes of Brandeis, Missouri, Oregon or Kansas are watching their backs right now.

It’s funny that the only league with an established promotion/relegation system is AAU.

It’s selective, though. Nebraska spotlighted the fact that Princeton, metrically, didn’t exactly measure up in some key areas, but, yeah, good luck pushing them out. Princeton sold its health system to Penn only a few years ago, too, so I wonder what those numbers would look like now.

I think the likes of Missouri and Kansas, who were heavy ag-sci schools like Nebraska and Iowa State should be more concerned than Brandeis or Rice, but all four, and others, should not be made to feel safe.

There are basically two separate divisions in AAU- the small private division and the large public division. Each gets judged accordingly so Iowa State and Princeton aren’t really competing for the same spot. Iowa State departing probably creates an opening for another large public.

At some point I’m going to have to learn the history of USF. Their trajectory is amazing on all the metrics that go into these decisions.

(04-21-2022 03:33 PM)johnintx Wrote:  KU's medical school and related hospital is in Kansas City. I'm not sure how it's governed in relation to the main campus in Lawrence. One of the metrics that got Nebraska kicked out of AAU was medical research done at the medical school in Omaha, which was not counted in statistics for the Lincoln campus due to the way the medical school is governed.

The medical school issue is a red herring. Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Indiana, Maryland, MIT, Oregon, Princeton, Purdue, Rice, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, and UC Santa Cruz -- that's more than 20% of the AAU membership -- don't have medical schools.

If someone wants to argue about "new AAU standards" requiring medical schools, that still doesn't fly. Georgia Tech and UC Santa Cruz are two of the newest AAU members, and neither has a medical school.

And (this should go without saying) having a medical school can only help a university in research rankings if the medical school has a strong research component -- i.e., a lot of researchers who focus on research, win a lot of competitive grants, and rarely if ever teach medical students.

The issue that AAU appears to have focused on is *competitively awarded* research grants. Maybe noncompetitive grants that are given to a university by a government entity or a private corporation were once given the same weight as competitively awarded research grants, but not so much anymore. Also, noncompetitive grants are much less likely to lead to peer-reviewed published research, and that would also make such grants far less valuable in university research rankings.

(04-21-2022 03:41 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 03:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 02:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  That would potentially open a possibility for another invite not too long after. Off the top of my head I could see these being considered:

Miami (FL)
Virginia Tech
Arizona State
North Carolina State
Georgia
South Florida

I don't follow academia that closely, though. My guess is the next invite would come from the South, as there aren't any serious candidates in the West or North, other than ASU. I also think the chances of Nebraska getting back in got even slimmer.

I do wonder if the likes of Brandeis, Missouri, Oregon or Kansas are watching their backs right now.

It’s funny that the only league with an established promotion/relegation system is AAU.

It is cut-throat. Last go around, Syracuse left voluntarily and Nebraska got voted out. Now, Iowa State is leaving voluntarily but maybe there are other schools that are being discussed. The announcement stresses how research funding has shifted from agriculture to medicine in the 65 years since ISU was first admitted to the AAU.

What may concern others in academia in this particular round is that Iowa State is still a fairly strong engineering school, so it's not as if though it's weak in STEM overall. Granted, ISU seems to have been consistently ranked behind non-AAU members like Virginia Tech, NC State and Arizona State in engineering over the past several years, so it may have been the case that ISU couldn't rely on its engineering reputation to make up the lack of a medical school any longer (unlikely a place like, say, Georgia Tech or Purdue).

(04-21-2022 03:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 03:33 PM)johnintx Wrote:  KU's medical school and related hospital is in Kansas City. I'm not sure how it's governed in relation to the main campus in Lawrence. One of the metrics that got Nebraska kicked out of AAU was medical research done at the medical school in Omaha, which was not counted in statistics for the Lincoln campus due to the way the medical school is governed.

The medical school issue is a red herring. Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Indiana, Maryland, MIT, Oregon, Princeton, Purdue, Rice, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, and UC Santa Cruz -- that's more than 20% of the AAU membership -- don't have medical schools.

If someone wants to argue about "new AAU standards" requiring medical schools, that still doesn't fly. Georgia Tech and UC Santa Cruz are two of the newest AAU members, and neither has a medical school.

And (this should go without saying) having a medical school can only help a university in research rankings if the medical school has a strong research component -- i.e., a lot of researchers who focus on research, win a lot of competitive grants, and rarely if ever teach medical students.

The issue that AAU appears to have focused on is *competitively awarded* research grants. Maybe noncompetitive grants that are given to a university by a government entity or a private corporation were once given the same weight as competitively awarded research grants, but not so much anymore. Also, noncompetitive grants are much less likely to lead to peer-reviewed published research, and that would also make such grants far less valuable in university research rankings.

Texas was very high in the AAU and they didn’t have a medical school until just about three years ago

(04-21-2022 03:16 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 03:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 02:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  That would potentially open a possibility for another invite not too long after. Off the top of my head I could see these being considered:

Miami (FL)
Virginia Tech
Arizona State
North Carolina State
Georgia
South Florida

I don't follow academia that closely, though. My guess is the next invite would come from the South, as there aren't any serious candidates in the West or North, other than ASU. I also think the chances of Nebraska getting back in got even slimmer.

I do wonder if the likes of Brandeis, Missouri, Oregon or Kansas are watching their backs right now.

It’s funny that the only league with an established promotion/relegation system is AAU.

It’s selective, though. Nebraska spotlighted the fact that Princeton, metrically, didn’t exactly measure up in some key areas, but, yeah, good luck pushing them out. Princeton sold its health system to Penn only a few years ago, too, so I wonder what those numbers would look like now.

I think the likes of Missouri and Kansas, who were heavy ag-sci schools like Nebraska and Iowa State should be more concerned than Brandeis or Rice, but all four, and others, should not be made to feel safe.

Missouri has a School of Agriculture (as well as med and engine schools) but Kansas has NONE. All the ag is at Kansas STATE University, not the University of Kansas. KU does have both med and engine schools. Admittedly KU is not is the "top tier" research but is hardly scraping the bottom of the AAU barrel either.

You are (or at least were in 2015) correct about Missouri. https://themissouritimes.com/report-reve...versities/

Notice what ISU said..."emphasis in medical research" (and ISU has no medical school). To really "make it" in AAU most schools need to have both a medical school AND an engineering school or be SUPER strong in at least one of those two areas.....and the "top tier" research members usually are strong in both. Schools "strong" in almost any of the liberal arts or schools that have an undergraduate or even a Masters Degree focus count for little. AAU is PhD focused. Also, you will notice that the makeup of the strongest AAU schools correlates fairly closely to the undergraduate/graduate ratio, as one might expect. Often the ratio is close to 1:1 among public universities and even higher at private ones. (Johns Hopkins, generally considered as the #1 US research university and a private one has a undergraduate/graduate ratio if 1:3!!!)

And, you are correct, the "target" keeps moving higher each year. Just because a school is AAU now doesn't mean it can rest on it's laurels thereafter.

Just like wedge says. There’s a strong weighting of “competitively awarded” grants.
From a lobbying perspective, it makes sense for the AAU to have this focus. They want government R&D money to go through a competitive award process and not through directed (sometimes pork barrel) spending. That’s a big part of their lobbying function.

Schools that are leaving previously had a lot of directed, non-competitive funding. Because Ag research often had this funding mechanism it looks like Ag was being devalued.

(04-21-2022 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 02:32 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  These transitions out don’t just happen. There are years of internal discussions and pressures applied. Some folks talk about the B1G…heck, wasn’t it some PAC folks who were mocking ISU indirectly some time back? It wouldn’t surprise me if those snobs out west blew it again turning down ISU if they approached the PAC, and the PAC then dismisses them as “not matching the cultural profile.”

How would have the Pac-12 have blown it by not inviting Iowa State? They actually don't fit the profile of that league at all culturally and geographically. Plus, even if you could argue ISU was somehow a fit, how would Iowa State have made the Pac-12 any money compared to Kansas, TCU, Texas Tech, etc.? At least the Texas-based schools have the argument that they're bringing in a huge population area with major TV markets and recruiting areas.

Iowa State is a fine athletic department with a very good fan base and solid academics. However, I'm at a loss as to how they'd be valued highly in power conference realignment when they don't have a national brand name, aren't located in a major population area, and have a higher profile in-state rival that's a flagship school in the Big Ten.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

I mean it’s more a question of what or who meets whatever these PAC standards at this point. And I suspect that turning away both Oklahoma’s and potentially others in the Big XII, MWC, and maybe elsewhere (AAC?), maybe there’s only an Austin-sized slot the PAC will tolerate.

If anyone has to pick apart ISU like that, looking past its otherwise great reputation, great fanbase, lucrative enough location (come on, it’s Iowa, not western Nebraska)…it’s six one, half-dozen another the kind of bias held against certain schools. “Culture” is as ambiguous and difficult to define as what constitutes a “business change” when a company attempts to adjust processes or operations. It’s just an excuse for something else.

Definitely a case of quit before being booted.

Miami and Utah seem the most likely schools to gain admission to the AAU if I read the metrics required correctly.

(04-21-2022 04:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Definitely a case of quit before being booted.

Miami and Utah seem the most likely schools to gain admission to the AAU if I read the metrics required correctly.

Utah was admitted to AAU in 2019.

(04-21-2022 04:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Definitely a case of quit before being booted.

Miami and Utah seem the most likely schools to gain admission to the AAU if I read the metrics required correctly.

Utah is already AAU
https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/our-membe...rsity-utah

That’s a touch break for the Cyclones. I’m sorry to hear that Iowa St fans.

(04-21-2022 04:19 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 02:32 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  These transitions out don’t just happen. There are years of internal discussions and pressures applied. Some folks talk about the B1G…heck, wasn’t it some PAC folks who were mocking ISU indirectly some time back? It wouldn’t surprise me if those snobs out west blew it again turning down ISU if they approached the PAC, and the PAC then dismisses them as “not matching the cultural profile.”

How would have the Pac-12 have blown it by not inviting Iowa State? They actually don't fit the profile of that league at all culturally and geographically. Plus, even if you could argue ISU was somehow a fit, how would Iowa State have made the Pac-12 any money compared to Kansas, TCU, Texas Tech, etc.? At least the Texas-based schools have the argument that they're bringing in a huge population area with major TV markets and recruiting areas.

Iowa State is a fine athletic department with a very good fan base and solid academics. However, I'm at a loss as to how they'd be valued highly in power conference realignment when they don't have a national brand name, aren't located in a major population area, and have a higher profile in-state rival that's a flagship school in the Big Ten.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

I mean it’s more a question of what or who meets whatever these PAC standards at this point. And I suspect that turning away both Oklahoma’s and potentially others in the Big XII, MWC, and maybe elsewhere (AAC?), maybe there’s only an Austin-sized slot the PAC will tolerate.

If anyone has to pick apart ISU like that, looking past its otherwise great reputation, great fanbase, lucrative enough location (come on, it’s Iowa, not western Nebraska)…it’s six one, half-dozen another the kind of bias held against certain schools. “Culture” is as ambiguous and difficult to define as what constitutes a “business change” when a company attempts to adjust processes or operations. It’s just an excuse for something else.

Personally, I've been on-the-record that I don't see the Pac-12 adding anyone for the foreseeable future now that Texas and Oklahoma are off-the-table. The Pac-12 really does have the same realignment criteria as the Big Ten in terms of academics, institutional fit and money, but they don't have anyone in their region or adjacent regions that fit any of that criteria (unlike the Big Ten where there are several ACC schools that would fit that bill). Remember that the top members of the Pac-12 that also happen to constitute the most powerful schools in the largest markets in the league - Stanford, Cal, UCLA and USC - are actually even more academically elitist than anyone in the Big Ten outside of Northwestern.

(04-21-2022 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 03:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-21-2022 03:33 PM)johnintx Wrote:  KU's medical school and related hospital is in Kansas City. I'm not sure how it's governed in relation to the main campus in Lawrence. One of the metrics that got Nebraska kicked out of AAU was medical research done at the medical school in Omaha, which was not counted in statistics for the Lincoln campus due to the way the medical school is governed.

The medical school issue is a red herring. Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Indiana, Maryland, MIT, Oregon, Princeton, Purdue, Rice, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, and UC Santa Cruz -- that's more than 20% of the AAU membership -- don't have medical schools.

If someone wants to argue about "new AAU standards" requiring medical schools, that still doesn't fly. Georgia Tech and UC Santa Cruz are two of the newest AAU members, and neither has a medical school.

And (this should go without saying) having a medical school can only help a university in research rankings if the medical school has a strong research component -- i.e., a lot of researchers who focus on research, win a lot of competitive grants, and rarely if ever teach medical students.

The issue that AAU appears to have focused on is *competitively awarded* research grants. Maybe noncompetitive grants that are given to a university by a government entity or a private corporation were once given the same weight as competitively awarded research grants, but not so much anymore. Also, noncompetitive grants are much less likely to lead to peer-reviewed published research, and that would also make such grants far less valuable in university research rankings.

Texas was very high in the AAU and they didn’t have a medical school until just about three years ago

Illinois is similar: we didn’t have a medical school at Urbana-Champaign until a couple of years ago.

Both Texas and Illinois have mega-strong engineering programs along with the rest of their STEM programs, though, so they do well on all of the research funding metrics. Schools like Purdue, Georgia Tech and (of course) MIT are in similar boats.

Arizona State, UAB, Virginia Tech, NCSU, and Cincinnati all spent more on research in 2020 than CU Boulder did, and they all spent at least $150 million more than Kansas (who spent $368 million).

That said, expenditure isn't the be-all and end-all. Those 5 also spent more than UChicago, which is one of the most prestigious research institutions in the country. I'd say that ASU, Virginia Tech, and NCSU are the three that have a shot (in that order). I don't see UAB or Cincy getting in.

(04-21-2022 04:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Definitely a case of quit before being booted.

Miami and Utah seem the most likely schools to gain admission to the AAU if I read the metrics required correctly.

Miami is definitely high on the list.

(04-21-2022 05:55 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Arizona State, UAB, Virginia Tech, NCSU, and Cincinnati all spent more on research in 2020 than CU Boulder did, and they all spent at least $150 million more than Kansas (who spent $368 million).

That said, expenditure isn't the be-all and end-all. Those 5 also spent more than UChicago, which is one of the most prestigious research institutions in the country. I'd say that ASU, Virginia Tech, and NCSU are the three that have a shot (in that order). I don't see UAB or Cincy getting in.

UAB is not getting in. They have a great medical school, but that alone won't carry them.

I imagine there’s a lot of schools on the AAU shortlist who hope an AAU invite increases their likelihood of inclusion in the college athletics’ new order.