And when all of the dust settles, that's why academics have nothing to do with conference realignment.

Sure, certain universities want to align themselves with strong academic institutions to increase perceived reputation of their own institutions, and the CIC presents an economic and (tangible) academic advantage for schools in the Big 10.

Beyond this, grant money and state appropriations will not change, which points us to the real prime mover in all of this. See: Nebraska.

Football I think :D

B1G looks at national branding first and foremost. That is why Nebraska got in. That is why B1G is waiting to see what ND and/or Texas wants to do. ISU has no national branding at all. They have been bottom feeders of the Big 12, and are an after thought in their own state. Academics are down on the list of priorities, but I would say that it appears the B1G puts some thought into it, moreso than other conferences. Mizzou's combination of a growing success in football, along with strong academics, puts it ahead of KU, KSU, ISU. KU stature in basketball is what places it ahead of KSU and ISU. Like others have said, I think KSU and ISU are similar institutions. Iowa does not care about ISU, however the KU may or may not help KSU when push comes to shove. No one knows what is going to happen, we are all pulling theories out of our asses at this point. But to think that ISU is the best candidate for the B1G is just foolish.

I think NU was a "brand name" grab, and at the time, was AAU rated. I don't pretend to know the motivations of each conference. I don't think the motivations can necessarily be boiled down to one common motivation. In the SEC, its obviously football. In the ACC, it appears to be academic standing, location, and basketball. In the PAC, its about TV market share because the availability of schools is limited by geography.

The B1G strikes me as the classic big academics/big athletics college fraternity. I think academic standing standing or perception does matter to them. Of all the conferences, I also think tradition matters the most to them, and that is why long time rivals like MU, KSU, KU and NU have sentimental value. Why continuing MU versus Illinois is a good thing. That "midwest people" have a lot in common. I don't think the B1G just tosses those things out in consideration, otherwise, I think they would have went after FSU and Texas even harder.

Well said. I agree with all of this.

Very good way of putting it. B1G does value tradition and at least the perception of academic standing.

Part of me still hopes the B1G invites Mizzou, but I am not holding out hope. Anything seems possible at this point.

I'm not talking in circles. I'm pointing out how you have moved so far away from the original comment and point. But whatever.

And Faculty and PhD students at various universities submit for NSF and other grants.

Vast majority. Some Universities and departments/programs are getting better at corporate sponsored research, but very little basic research is funded by corporations. There's rarely an economic return on basic research soon enough to make it of interest to corporations.

What was once 95% state funding at the UA is now 10-15%. Tuition and Research funding are the lifeblood of a research university.

Heh in computers almost no one in industry funds research at academia with the intent to get anything back from academia. Generally speaking academia is 3-5 years behind industry. Industry funds academia to get recruiting access to students for recruiting. Most big money still comes from NSF/Darpa to my knowledge.

:Lin:

Here was the original point, Jaz, and it remains accurate. The Big 10 didn't seek out Nebraska because of its stellar academic reputation. The conference added this school because of its behemoth football program, which is a revenue-generating machine. Regional exposure, opening new markets, etc...revenue is the common denominator.

Then you started talking about a school's overall operating budget, which is primarily driven by tuition, state appropriations, and grants. None of which have much to do with conference realignment. Tuition perhaps could enter the debate if a few additions would then increase the marketability and brand of a conference (individual school) enough to drive up enrollment.

Solid academic conferences have added lesser academic institutions over the past 12 months. Why? Pretty simple answer.

Finally, it's not just doctoral students who can apply for research funding, as you surely know, but I understand that you're at a point in your life that this is your primary focus (based on your initial fiscal analysis of a university, which seems to have been a point of discussion in Intro. to Grad. Studies at the southwest branch of KU--read U of A--, and your final post to me).

Most research universities aren't heavy into computer/technology research, its mostly bio/medical. Almost all innovation in the health related industry comes from universities, not industry.

Either way...with the addition of Cuse, Pitt, UConn, and most likely Rutgers, the ACC has the top academic conference. This is exciting for the ACC. They beat the SEC and Big East to the punch.

So ND has said they would not join a conference unless there is a "seismic shift" in the conference landscape.

Does Syracuse and Pitt qualify? What about UConn and Rutgers potentially going to the ACC with them, and WVU going to the SEC?

That would eliminate many of the best universities in the Big East, greatly impacting the prestige of the conference for ND's non-football sports. Would this be enough of a catalyst to get ND to finally join a conference (B1G most likely)?

If ND finally bites the bullet, I can definitely see a scenario where both Mizzou and ku (maybe along with Rutgers) ride in with them to the Big Ten. But I don't see B1G expanding at all if they don't get a big dog - ND or UT - with it.