Not sure who Tiggerhawk is from HN, but he has been posting this in a couple threads and it is right on the money. Absolutely owns John Miller in his "dollars and sense" thread.
Bottom line is the $$$ involved from a research/academics perspective absolutely dwarfs any revenue from an athletic perspective and will be THE primary indicator of who will be extended invites to the B10/11 if anyone.
Posted by Tiggerhawk on HN:
The fatal flaw in your extended summation of athletic budgets, television markets, etc, Mr Miller, is that the entire analysis seems to rest on assumptions that are lacking seriously in proportion.
Start instead with the most basic, fundamental controlling facts and the most obvious (usually explicitly stated) purposes of the players involved.
1. Most critical, the Big Ten is primarily a consortium of major research universities. It has made in clear repeatedly in the most explicit language that in any expansion the most important, essential criterion would be that a potential candidate for membership would be that it is a major researh university.
2. Mizzou is NOT one. Neither is Nebraska. (Ironically, Iowa State IS). It could not be more of an obvious political fact of life that NEITHER Mizzou or Nebraska will have a political climate any time in the near future where n the state legislature would reverse years of neglect of education (particularly post-secondary ed) to appropriate the billions of dollars necessary to bring either school un to the level of research facilities, programs, capabilities required by the BT of any new member.
3. The very reason why the Big Ten presidents will decide this summer to put possible expansion on their agenda definitely rules out Mizzou or Nebraska--or Syracuse, or Notre Dame, or Boston College, or just about any school not named Rutgers, Pitt or Texas. Necessarily, the BT presidents have remained discreetly silent on the subject of expansion...other than the announcement last Fall that the BT staff was going to gather further info and opinion on expansion, a statement that directly linked the prospect of the BT moving expansion ahead on the timetable because of the likelihood that the scope, scale & pace of federal funding of university-based research will likely accelerate post-passage of national health reform legislation.
One exception to the silence of the BT presidents has been Iowa's own Sally Mason: several months ago she participated in a forum at Penn State as the lone BT president in which BT expansion was debated (the forum subsequently was aired several times on the Penn Status weekly campus programming on BTN). Mason had to be discreet in her remarks, which were mostly generalities--but she made the point that the reason why expansion might be on the agenda soon was the anticipated significant increase in federal funding, and the understandable priority of the BT to position itself as favorably as it could both as a whole and as individual institutions in the competition for the greater federal contracts, grants, etc.
4. The huge sums of money you mention is TV & media contracts attendance, bowls, etc are significant, dwarf our imaginations...But they need to be viewed in accurate PERSPECTIVE.
A. The athletic budget at NO Big Ten school is much more than five percent--1/20th--of the total budget. It is about ten percent--1/10th--of the research budgeting. At out own U of Iowa, this past fiscal year, THREE researchers at the U of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics together brought in more funding than the ENTIRE athletic dept budget.
B. The essence, the far & away most significant amount you are referencing in regard to BT athletics, is the less than a quarter-billion dollars in television revenue shared by the Big Ten schools. That is a lot of moolah, no question about it. But again, PERSPECTIVE: that is about five percent--1/20th--of the research funds coming now to the BT & its member schools. It is about five percent--1/20th--of what the Big Ten hopes to receive as a lion's share of increased federal funding of university-based research.
C. However fascinating internet folk and the media find those large $$$$$$ of TV money for football, bowls, conference & NCAA hoops games & tournaments, etc...it nonetheless ought to be evident to anyone who glances at the comparative numbers to understand why the Big Ten is more interested (as example) the potential funds that Pitt, with its strong medical facilities, research capabilities, patents & contracts can bring to the BT consortium than a possibly more lucrative TV contract resulting from adding Nebraska.
It is the difference between millions of dollars, and billions of dollars. It is the difference between vast gains in the academic & research capabilities of the BT and its member schools--AND the greater prestige and access to further foundation, corporate & govt financial support that results--compared to some marginal improvement in its competitive situation relative to other athletic conferences.
Not suggesting that a forum like this whose purpose is to enhance our discussions of Hawkeye athletics ought to cvoncern itself instead with academic & research aspects of the U of Iowa...just that we should conduct our debates with an awareness of what the real parameters of Hawkeye sports are. And that means IMO as the absolute minimum a proud awareness of just how unique and dominant the Big Ten is compared with other merely-athletic conferences.
Bottom line is the $$$ involved from a research/academics perspective absolutely dwarfs any revenue from an athletic perspective and will be THE primary indicator of who will be extended invites to the B10/11 if anyone.
Posted by Tiggerhawk on HN:
The fatal flaw in your extended summation of athletic budgets, television markets, etc, Mr Miller, is that the entire analysis seems to rest on assumptions that are lacking seriously in proportion.
Start instead with the most basic, fundamental controlling facts and the most obvious (usually explicitly stated) purposes of the players involved.
1. Most critical, the Big Ten is primarily a consortium of major research universities. It has made in clear repeatedly in the most explicit language that in any expansion the most important, essential criterion would be that a potential candidate for membership would be that it is a major researh university.
2. Mizzou is NOT one. Neither is Nebraska. (Ironically, Iowa State IS). It could not be more of an obvious political fact of life that NEITHER Mizzou or Nebraska will have a political climate any time in the near future where n the state legislature would reverse years of neglect of education (particularly post-secondary ed) to appropriate the billions of dollars necessary to bring either school un to the level of research facilities, programs, capabilities required by the BT of any new member.
3. The very reason why the Big Ten presidents will decide this summer to put possible expansion on their agenda definitely rules out Mizzou or Nebraska--or Syracuse, or Notre Dame, or Boston College, or just about any school not named Rutgers, Pitt or Texas. Necessarily, the BT presidents have remained discreetly silent on the subject of expansion...other than the announcement last Fall that the BT staff was going to gather further info and opinion on expansion, a statement that directly linked the prospect of the BT moving expansion ahead on the timetable because of the likelihood that the scope, scale & pace of federal funding of university-based research will likely accelerate post-passage of national health reform legislation.
One exception to the silence of the BT presidents has been Iowa's own Sally Mason: several months ago she participated in a forum at Penn State as the lone BT president in which BT expansion was debated (the forum subsequently was aired several times on the Penn Status weekly campus programming on BTN). Mason had to be discreet in her remarks, which were mostly generalities--but she made the point that the reason why expansion might be on the agenda soon was the anticipated significant increase in federal funding, and the understandable priority of the BT to position itself as favorably as it could both as a whole and as individual institutions in the competition for the greater federal contracts, grants, etc.
4. The huge sums of money you mention is TV & media contracts attendance, bowls, etc are significant, dwarf our imaginations...But they need to be viewed in accurate PERSPECTIVE.
A. The athletic budget at NO Big Ten school is much more than five percent--1/20th--of the total budget. It is about ten percent--1/10th--of the research budgeting. At out own U of Iowa, this past fiscal year, THREE researchers at the U of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics together brought in more funding than the ENTIRE athletic dept budget.
B. The essence, the far & away most significant amount you are referencing in regard to BT athletics, is the less than a quarter-billion dollars in television revenue shared by the Big Ten schools. That is a lot of moolah, no question about it. But again, PERSPECTIVE: that is about five percent--1/20th--of the research funds coming now to the BT & its member schools. It is about five percent--1/20th--of what the Big Ten hopes to receive as a lion's share of increased federal funding of university-based research.
C. However fascinating internet folk and the media find those large $$$$$$ of TV money for football, bowls, conference & NCAA hoops games & tournaments, etc...it nonetheless ought to be evident to anyone who glances at the comparative numbers to understand why the Big Ten is more interested (as example) the potential funds that Pitt, with its strong medical facilities, research capabilities, patents & contracts can bring to the BT consortium than a possibly more lucrative TV contract resulting from adding Nebraska.
It is the difference between millions of dollars, and billions of dollars. It is the difference between vast gains in the academic & research capabilities of the BT and its member schools--AND the greater prestige and access to further foundation, corporate & govt financial support that results--compared to some marginal improvement in its competitive situation relative to other athletic conferences.
Not suggesting that a forum like this whose purpose is to enhance our discussions of Hawkeye athletics ought to cvoncern itself instead with academic & research aspects of the U of Iowa...just that we should conduct our debates with an awareness of what the real parameters of Hawkeye sports are. And that means IMO as the absolute minimum a proud awareness of just how unique and dominant the Big Ten is compared with other merely-athletic conferences.
