PonyFans.com

Who you gonna believe? ESPN or burnt orange-poisoned Chip Brown?

One thing I don't believe is that a collective "research mission" has anything to do with any of this. Schools that pay coaches multi-million dollar salaries while firing librarians for lack of funding are blowing smoke when they talk about sports and academics being tied to the hip. If UT is so interested in academics why don't they join the Ivy League.

Someone said that the Big 10 schools collectively split monies almost equal to what they receive from the conference from research grants

ESPN just reported TX stays put. ETA: it was a SC teaser right after the finish of the world cup game.

said there were conflicting reports.....thanks ESPN.

Yep... worthless. Just a Chip Brown retweet.

Joe Schad was the interview. Still thinks too late for B12. TX may be willing to listen, but thinks PAC is a done deal. Still looking like aTm to SEC. Utah better fit than KS for last PAC spot. MWC salivates for a shot at KS & Kstate.

Great work ESPN. Breaking news indeed.

smupony94 wrote:Someone said that the Big 10 schools collectively split monies almost equal to what they receive from the conference from research grants

From SB Nation on the academic benefits of the Big 10. Something called the "CIC":

"What the CIC does do is four fold. First, it acts as a library exchange between it's member institutions, allowing almost instantaneous access to each member's extensive libraries. This is a big benefit is you're doing research on a subject that hasn't been covered at your particular institution, and it's a tremendous asset to your student population. Second, the CIC facilitates a scholar exchange. This allows member schools to solicit, borrow or in some ways "trade" faculty for set periods of time to allow their various departments to benefit from their expertise. It's an underrated aspect of CIC membership in that it allows schools to obtain teachers and researchers at limited cost and limits interconference pilfering of staff, allowing for greater continuity on those staffs.Third, and this is really just a thing for students, there's total credit reciprocity between the schools. If you've got credits at IU, they'll take them fully at Michigan, Ohio State and the University of Chicago. That's not bad. Finally, the CIC works actively to network its member institutions. The CIC works to bring together similar projects, funding opportunities, and other things like academic cooperation among the members."

So they co-ordinate lobbying for money. They don't split athletic revenue with their academic departments.

Topper wrote:

smupony94 wrote:Someone said that the Big 10 schools collectively split monies almost equal to what they receive from the conference from research grants

From SB Nation on the academic benefits of the Big 10. Something called the "CIC":

"What the CIC does do is four fold. First, it acts as a library exchange between it's member institutions, allowing almost instantaneous access to each member's extensive libraries. This is a big benefit is you're doing research on a subject that hasn't been covered at your particular institution, and it's a tremendous asset to your student population. Second, the CIC facilitates a scholar exchange. This allows member schools to solicit, borrow or in some ways "trade" faculty for set periods of time to allow their various departments to benefit from their expertise. It's an underrated aspect of CIC membership in that it allows schools to obtain teachers and researchers at limited cost and limits interconference pilfering of staff, allowing for greater continuity on those staffs.Third, and this is really just a thing for students, there's total credit reciprocity between the schools. If you've got credits at IU, they'll take them fully at Michigan, Ohio State and the University of Chicago. That's not bad. Finally, the CIC works actively to network its member institutions. The CIC works to bring together similar projects, funding opportunities, and other things like academic cooperation among the members."

So they co-ordinate lobbying for money. They don't split athletic revenue with their academic departments.

I see that they mentioned the University of Chicago, which shows that the CIC (or something equivalent) can exist in complete absence of the athletic conference.

Now there's a report that UT is meeting with the other Big 12 schools to gather a lopsided share of revenue from a new proposed TV contract — $25 million a year to UT, and $17 million to be split among the other schools.

That's about what has to be offered to make UT even contemplate staying. But if accepted, it will make the hatred for UT around the state grow exponentially.

Chicago was a member of the Big Ten.........until they dropped athletics. Big 10 was 9 until Michigan State joined in '53, that's the connection.

Prairiepony wrote:Chicago was a member of the Big Ten.........until they dropped athletics. Big 10 was 9 until Michigan State joined in '53, that's the connection.

Thanks, I should have realized that. I still wonder why the academic arrangement in anyway has to coincide with the athletic arrangement other than to serve as a fig leaf.

Casey wrote:Now there's a report that UT is meeting with the other Big 12 schools to gather a lopsided share of revenue from a new proposed TV contract — $25 million a year to UT, and $17 million to be split among the other schools.

That's about what has to be offered to make UT even contemplate staying. But if accepted, it will make the hatred for UT around the state grow exponentially.

figures aside, this is why i thought the Big 12 (10) had a chance to survive if Texas waited over the weekend. basically, Baylor and the others were all going to be willing to give up varying degree of economics to hold the league together, whatever it took. I bet they would even come out of pocket if they had to. Just like paying an entry fee. The cost of getting left behind is too great. Which is why its so mindboggling that SMU was so willing to get left behind for so many years.

Wuba wrote:

Prairiepony wrote:Chicago was a member of the Big Ten.........until they dropped athletics. Big 10 was 9 until Michigan State joined in '53, that's the connection.

Thanks, I should have realized that. I still wonder why the academic arrangement in anyway has to coincide with the athletic arrangement other than to serve as a fig leaf.

Fig leaf is an appropos term. There are numerous such consortiums of colleges and universities around the country that package research, degree plans, course offerings, library priviliges, etc. There is no particular tie in to athletics. It so happens that most of the Big 10 schools are old, well funded, research institutions with big enrollments. The fact that they are the premier football schools in their state probably has much to do with the same political clout that moves research funding their way. The state of Texas has a college co-ordinating board that divides money among the schools. UT and A & M of course get most. None of it is based on their abysmal football graduation rates.