Whew that was close....I wondered why this thread was even created, till I peaked inside the old one. If I had stayed any longer than I did I would have caught teh AIDS.

Florida State to the SEC? Hmmm.

http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/fsu-for...ion-committee/

I've heard some insiders say the SEC will be the first major conference to 16 teams. Could they add A&M, Mizzou, FSU, and Virginia Tech/West Virginia in one fell swoop?

It has never made sense to me that the SEC would not want FSU just because it doesn't add to their footprint. FSU is a powerhouse program and Florida is a huge state for talent, it makes sense to add another big-time program there and lock up the state.

jAZ,
I'm still not sure why you are arguing what you are arguing. WTF would an athletic conference care what money is in a candidate's research budget? How does that help the athletic conference. As we all know, money drives the world. And I doubt those research dollars that school gets is being given to the athletic conference.

You have it backwards. At it's core, the question isn't about what helps the athletic conference. That assumed the Universities exists for their football teams. It's the opposite.

It's a question of what benefits the University as a whole. I read an SI article a few years ago talking about the rebranding of the Pac-10 just after Larry Scott arrived. It was interesting and helped me realize how important the associated images are to the brand of a University.

At the top levels (President, Chancellor, Board of Regents), just like at Coke and Apple, brand is the most valuable asset the organization owns. It's about recruiting the top talent (students and faculty) which drive the quality of the acadmics, the rankings, which in turn drive the research budgets which in turn drive the overhead generated from research which in turn has a massive budgetary impact.

Research, today, is MUCH more important to the university than sports. My advisor teaches a class for incoming PhD students. He founded my Department at the UA 40 years ago. Last week he asked us why research is so important to the University. Then went into the explanation of the 33% overhead calculation.

But it didn't really click until he explained the history.

At the UA, back when he came 40 years ago, state tax dollars paid for 95% of the University budget. Today it's down to about 15%. The rest of the money is generated from 2 places... higher tuition and research funding.

Higher tuition generally makes it harder to attract students. Attracting talented students is key to attracting talented faculty (it goes both ways) which combined are how you attract more research funding.

That's why research is so important.

And back to the brand of the Pac-10...

SME's report concluded that to its target audiences to the east and west, the Pac-10 needed to exude West Coast-cool. It needs to remind people that the Pac-10 footprint is home to innovators such as Google, Nike, Microsoft and Apple. It needs to remind people that the Pac-10 is home to some of the nation's elite universities. It also needs to remind people that the Pac-10 wins -- a lot. The league has claimed 388 NCAA titles, more than 150 more than the second-place Big Ten.

That's not only the needs of the conference's sports teams. It's the same need of the individual Universities. It's brand is a big part of the thought process of why students attend a University.

You still did not answer his question.

Yes, we all can understand the difference between research budgets and athletic budgets, but I have yet to be convinced that an athletic conference affiliation has any direct impact on current or future university research funding.

Vandy and Florida are excellent universities with major research funding, despite the fact their athletic teams are in the SEC. Arizona State and Washington State are pedestrian schools with minimal research funding, even though their athletic teams are members of the PAC-12.

To be a super conference you need three basic things:

1. You need at least 3, preferably 4 major football powers: FSU, Miami, Virginia Tech and Texas qualify

2. You need major markets: Raleigh Durham, Miami, other parts of Florida, Boston, the Beltway, Texas and Missouri qualify

3. You need good supplemental football programs: Missouri, Boston College, Maryland, NC St, Clemson and Georgia Tech qualify

That's all you really need, but here's the kicker:

4. There's a whole second half to the academic year and it does actually create quite a bit of buzz and money. UNC-Duke is the crown jewel for ESPN basketball and they awarded the ACC a big basketball contract just for it. Now you're going to add Kansas with Texas, MU and another probably decent basketball school on top of it? That's why they're talking about this as the richest conference deal yet and why nobody is going to leave it. It fortifies the ACC. If you make more money and have the security, why do you want to run your program through the gauntlet of SEC football? Plus, you get to keep your high academic standing by getting at least 3 more AAU schools into your conference.

That's the trifecta right there: Great football, great basketball, superior academic reputation.

I thought the Texas to ACC idea was just a ploy at first, but this idea could actually work.

You never cease to disappoint.

LHN is the elephant in the room though. It caused the destruction of the Big 12, and if left unchanged it will pull the ACC apart too. I don't think UT is willing to change it.

Are you not entertained! :D

That's why ESPN, which has the sole contract with the ACC, will make it worth the ACC's while if they accommodate it.

Sure, but from a Mizzou fan's perspective, I absolutely do not want to go to a conference where the rules are bent from the beginning to allow UT to do whatever benefits them. That is exactly what caused the demise of the Big 12.

that's the reason for all the fires in Texas, even GOD thinks that UT sucks and is trying to burn it to the ground.

I have my hopes about this

I agree with you on this. And I hope the same for KU.

Here's a decent explanation for why people covet the Big 10: http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/10/...nd-the-cic-are

Research in most departments generates zero dollars for the university as a whole. It does increase the overall prestige and marketability, thus ostensibly increasing enrollment, which is the major driver of budgets.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that athletics (primarily) fund an institution.