Conference realignment: Georgia Tech to BIG 10 (2013, move, budget)

[Psykomonkee]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

You are right, GT, Clemson and FSU add nothing for the SEC monetarily.

I certainly think GT wouldn't be at the top of the conference, but over the past 15 years we certainly have been better than Kentucky, Vandy, Missouri, Miss St and Ole Miss. If you look at the average records, GT compares very favorably to Tennessee, USCe, and TAMU during the same stretch. Would GT compete with UF, UGA, LSU and Bama, no, but I think they could hold their own against the mid-level and lower level SEC teams.

When you put it that way, it makes sense. I'm just thinking more rivalry for SEC. I'm an SEC fan. Was NOT thinking money at all, but that makes sense.

I thought West Virginia should have gone to the SEC when they were looking to move.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by Psykomonkee

When you put it that way, it makes sense. I'm just thinking more rivalry for SEC. I'm an SEC fan. Was NOT thinking money at all, but that makes sense.

I thought West Virginia should have gone to the SEC when they were looking to move.

Expanding to Texas and Missouri brought in much larger media markets than would West Virginia. These moves are all fueled by money.

[CrazyPaco]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

I disagree. Look at the effect of joining the Big Ten and CIC had on Penn State's research 20 years ago.

A B1G membership would be big for GT as far as research goes.

False. It did not elevate research at Penn State. That is an urban myth based on people gobbling up publicity copy. Don't confuse the near doubling of available federal research funding during the 1990s with the CIC doing a darn thing to increase any institution's research expenditures. You can't look at the raw numbers in a vacuum.

According to the NSF reports, in FY 1990 Penn State R&D accounted for 1.57% of total national R&D expenditures among US colleges and universities (or 9th out of all colleges and universities in the US). In FY 2011, the latest available numbers, Penn State R&D had fallen to 1.23% of total academic R&D spending or #16 nationally.

Therefore, the actual facts are that Penn State has actually fallen in % of total national R&D expenditures in comparison to peers since it joined the CIC in 1990. In addition, since 1996 when US News began individual school rankings past 25th place, Penn State has dropped from #41 to #46 this year. It's numbers are worse, not better.

The truth is the ACCIAC is essentially the exact same thing as the CIC, and neither really do a darn thing to enhance a school's competitiveness in obtaining extramural research support or anything substantial to foster inter-institutional collaborations on real research projects. They both have some nice programs and do some nice things, but what is often implied to be done by these "consortiums" is simply not the reality of how academic research works.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Oh look who is wrong again.

The Big Ten generates more through their media deals than does the SEC.

Google it.

Georgia Tech already brings in more money in research than Illinois and way more than Purdue. GT is already among the leading research schools. Moving to the B1G would be more of a lateral move in terms of research for GT.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Georgia Tech already brings in more money in research than Illinois and way more than Purdue. GT is already among the leading research schools. Moving to the B1G would be more of a lateral move in terms of research for GT.

Top to bottom, there are more research universities in the Big Ten I would rather be associated with.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Top to bottom, there are more research universities in the Big Ten I would rather be associated with.

But you don't need an Athletic Conference affiliation to do research with'em. I mean, should GT drop down to DIII so it can collaborate with MIT and the biggest research cash cow John Hopkins?

[dichloromethane]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

But you don't need an Athletic Conference affiliation to do research with'em. I mean, should GT drop down to DIII so it can collaborate with MIT and the biggest research cash cow John Hopkins?

Now you're just being ridiculous. Try to understand what he's saying here. The research would only serve as an added plus, icing on the cake. A conference partnership enables quicker collaboration rather than individual departments collaborating with each other on a particular grant or project. That happens as it is. Schools want to see their conferences do well. Much like how you would want your close friend to do well rather than someone you know at work.

Scientifically, it doesn't make much sense.
Unfortunately, science no longer drives the world of man, money does.

Anyways, the shear millions from joining BIG 10 would more than justify the realignment. That is the bottom line. You can argue up and down, but Georgia Tech joining the BIG 10 would be a very great thing.

Regarding penn state, conference realignment is not a significant boost. It's only a considerable boost. There are plenty of factors at play at a school of Penn State's size.

Remember, it wasn't until fairly recently that football payouts ballooned to the amounts they're at now. It wasn't until recently that academic reimbursements became commonplace at even DIII schools.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by dichloromethane

Now you're just being ridiculous. Try to understand what he's saying here. The research would only serve as an added plus, icing on the cake. A conference partnership enables quicker collaboration rather than individual departments collaborating with each other on a particular grant or project. That happens as it is. Schools want to see their conferences do well. Much like how you would want your close friend to do well rather than someone you know at work.

Collaboration comes down to departments and individual connections. It's not driven by conference affiliation. Conferences have their academic collaboration organizations setup probably more as show as to how they value academics. But a lot of the collaborative research comes down to individual connections.

The best that can be said for a B1G membership is the bowl, etc. payouts.

[dichloromethane]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Collaboration comes down to departments and individual connections. It's not driven by conference affiliation. Conferences have their academic collaboration organizations setup probably more as show as to how they value academics. But a lot of the collaborative research comes down to individual connections.

The best that can be said for a B1G membership is the bowl, etc. payouts.

Yes, but with conference alliances, there is incentive. There is meaning. I would argue that the higher standards(and bigger endowments) of the other BIG 10 schools would pressure Tech to step up it's game as well, even though they're already way up there.

As always, we'll agree to disagree.

[CrazyPaco]

Originally Posted by dichloromethane

Yes, but with conference alliances, there is incentive. There is meaning. I would argue that the higher standards(and bigger endowments) of the other BIG 10 schools would pressure Tech to step up it's game as well, even though they're already way up there.

As always, we'll agree to disagree.

Well, your argument would be wrong. That is simply not how things work in academia.

Nearly every point you have made above has no basis in fact or the real world. I'll stick my PhD and 15 years in academic research on it.

MathmanMathman is dead on accurate.