College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless, it is easy to understand the other posters characterization of Cal based on what has been posted in this thread recently.

True. If Cal had better football and actual interest in their sports in the Bay Area, the Big Ten would have immediately invited them! They are missing the biggest part of the profile the members of an athletic conference are looking at

+1 I concede that. The Wisconsins and Minnesotas are not in the same league as UCB as universities though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The National Science Foundation ranks R&D (research & development) Expenditures for over 1,000 colleges and universities and medical centers each year.
The most recent year that I have is for 2021: (UCal-Berkeley is ranked at #32 with $847 million in R&D expenditures).

R&D Expenditires for 2021:

1) Johns Hopkins University--$3.2 Billion
2) UC-San Francisco--$1.7 Billion
3) U Michigan--$1.64 Billion
4) U Penn--$1.63 Billion
5) U Washington-Seattle--$1.5 Billion

6) UCLA--$1.46 Billion
7) UC-San Diego--$1.426 Billion
8) U Wisconsin-Madison--$1.38 Billion
9) Stanford--$1.275 Billion
10) Harvard--$1.254 Billion

11) Duke--$1.238 Billion
12) Ohio State University--$1.236 Billion
13) UNC--$1.2 Billion
14) Cornell--$1.18 Billion
15) Yale--$1.165 Billion

16) Texas A&M--$1.147 Billion
17) U Maryland--$1.142 Billion
18) U Pittsburgh--$1.135 Billion
19) U Texas Cancer Center--$1.125 Billion
20) Georgia Tech--$1.115 Billion

21) Columbia--$1.10 Billion
22) U Minnesota--$1.073 Billion
23) NYU--$1.064 Billion
24) Vanderbilt--$1.019 Billion
25) WashUStL--$989 million
26) Penn State Univ.--$971 million
27) U Florida--$960 million
28) USC--$956 million
29) MIT--$949 million
30) Northwestern University--$913 million

31) Emory University--$853 million
32) UCal-Berkeley--$847 million
33) Icahn Mount Sinai--$820 million
34) UC-Davis--$817 million
35) U Texas-Austin--$779 million

41) Purdue--$680 million

These #s are basically junk as presented, especially given the combined medical centers that some have.

Prove it--as the rest of the world and the National Science Foundation know otherwise.

This is why other posters claim that UCal-Berkeley kids are smug & insufferable. You make outlandish claims that you cannot support than make childish remarks denigrating the facts when presented to you.

Cal doesn't have a med school or hospital/medical center though, does it? I don't have any Cal affiliation (I spent my time in CA across the Bay actually disliking Cal) but it does look like the med influence is a pretty big driver of a lot of the numbers you are citing.

Does it matter ? The UCal-Berkeley supporter claimed that Cal is the best public research university in the US. I asked that poster for any supporting data or source. Silence. No response. So I did a quick google search & found the NSF data and presented it.

I don't think you understand the UC system in Northern California though. The UC medical research, med school, and hospital for the Bay Area have been intentionally separated in the system, which is what UC-SF is (#2 on your list). They have dual degrees and a lot of cooperation with UCB but that hospital research and related $ goes to them. UCB and MIT are actually real standouts being on that list with no med schools or hospitals.

First you object to medical, now you want medical, yet you have presented no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion that "Cal is the best research university in the US."

Has UC-Berkeley objected to the National Science Foundation numbers and rankings ? No. End of story as it shows Berkeley to be #32, not #1, and about #17 among just public research universities, again not #1.

All you are doing is proving the other posters characterization of Cal folks. Please stop with the silliness. I am not your enemy. All I did was ask for a source of support for a ridiculous claim made without any basis.

To fairly compare Cal in practice to the schools with med schools and hospitals, you could remove the hospital and medical numbers from the others or you could add the UC-SF #s to Cal's, which would make the NorCal UC schools #2 on your list...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless, it is easy to understand the other posters characterization of Cal based on what has been posted in this thread recently.

True. If Cal had better football and actual interest in their sports in the Bay Area, the Big Ten would have immediately invited them! They are missing the biggest part of the profile the members of an athletic conference are looking at

Correct.

Again, it is not just the Big Ten Conference's decision to make; it is a joint assessment & evaluation by the Big Ten Conference and its media partners who are paying out billions of dollars (about $8 billion over 7 years) for the right to broadcast the athletic events.

Obviously, the Big Ten Conference was interested in both Cal & Stanford and that was why the vetting of both schools occurred along with U Washington & U Oregon.

[Anonymous]

I'm a late arrival to this back and forth but the NSF list doesn't make Berkeley look bad or worse than existing B1G schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(OP here):

Back to the thread title topic.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that Cal & Stanford are going to be offered by the Big Ten Conference--at least for now. To me, adding Cal & Stanford would make sense if the goal is to form a 24 team mega-conference. The 6 West Coast teams could be in the same division which would preserve rivalries & minimize travel costs.

The decision is not made by the Big Ten Conference alone; decisions are made in conjunction with the broadcast partners. My impression is that the Big Ten University Presidents wanted Stanford, but the media partners were not onboard at this time. Things can change.

Well, exactly. All this discussion of academic prestige is irrelevant. The broadcasters are calling the shots. They’re getting the matchups they want to pay for (& that will attract the most viewers). Vanderbilt and a few others in the SEC better watch their back the next time the SEC contract comes up for renewal.

[Anonymous]

Also, the NSF list highlights the earlier suggestion to vote Purdue off the island!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP here):

Back to the thread title topic.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that Cal & Stanford are going to be offered by the Big Ten Conference--at least for now. To me, adding Cal & Stanford would make sense if the goal is to form a 24 team mega-conference. The 6 West Coast teams could be in the same division which would preserve rivalries & minimize travel costs.

The decision is not made by the Big Ten Conference alone; decisions are made in conjunction with the broadcast partners. My impression is that the Big Ten University Presidents wanted Stanford, but the media partners were not onboard at this time. Things can change.

Well, exactly. All this discussion of academic prestige is irrelevant. The broadcasters are calling the shots. They’re getting the matchups they want to pay for (& that will attract the most viewers). Vanderbilt and a few others in the SEC better watch their back the next time the SEC contract comes up for renewal.

So true. No big conference is sending invitations to Harvard and Yale anytime soon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The National Science Foundation ranks R&D (research & development) Expenditures for over 1,000 colleges and universities and medical centers each year.
The most recent year that I have is for 2021: (UCal-Berkeley is ranked at #32 with $847 million in R&D expenditures).

R&D Expenditires for 2021:

1) Johns Hopkins University--$3.2 Billion
2) UC-San Francisco--$1.7 Billion
3) U Michigan--$1.64 Billion
4) U Penn--$1.63 Billion
5) U Washington-Seattle--$1.5 Billion

6) UCLA--$1.46 Billion
7) UC-San Diego--$1.426 Billion
8) U Wisconsin-Madison--$1.38 Billion
9) Stanford--$1.275 Billion
10) Harvard--$1.254 Billion

11) Duke--$1.238 Billion
12) Ohio State University--$1.236 Billion
13) UNC--$1.2 Billion
14) Cornell--$1.18 Billion
15) Yale--$1.165 Billion

16) Texas A&M--$1.147 Billion
17) U Maryland--$1.142 Billion
18) U Pittsburgh--$1.135 Billion
19) U Texas Cancer Center--$1.125 Billion
20) Georgia Tech--$1.115 Billion

21) Columbia--$1.10 Billion
22) U Minnesota--$1.073 Billion
23) NYU--$1.064 Billion
24) Vanderbilt--$1.019 Billion
25) WashUStL--$989 million
26) Penn State Univ.--$971 million
27) U Florida--$960 million
28) USC--$956 million
29) MIT--$949 million
30) Northwestern University--$913 million

31) Emory University--$853 million
32) UCal-Berkeley--$847 million
33) Icahn Mount Sinai--$820 million
34) UC-Davis--$817 million
35) U Texas-Austin--$779 million

41) Purdue--$680 million

These #s are basically junk as presented, especially given the combined medical centers that some have.

Prove it--as the rest of the world and the National Science Foundation know otherwise.

This is why other posters claim that UCal-Berkeley kids are smug & insufferable. You make outlandish claims that you cannot support than make childish remarks denigrating the facts when presented to you.

Cal doesn't have a med school or hospital/medical center though, does it? I don't have any Cal affiliation (I spent my time in CA across the Bay actually disliking Cal) but it does look like the med influence is a pretty big driver of a lot of the numbers you are citing.

Does it matter ? The UCal-Berkeley supporter claimed that Cal is the best public research university in the US. I asked that poster for any supporting data or source. Silence. No response. So I did a quick google search & found the NSF data and presented it.

I don't think you understand the UC system in Northern California though. The UC medical research, med school, and hospital for the Bay Area have been intentionally separated in the system, which is what UC-SF is (#2 on your list). They have dual degrees and a lot of cooperation with UCB but that hospital research and related $ goes to them. UCB and MIT are actually real standouts being on that list with no med schools or hospitals.

First you object to medical, now you want medical, yet you have presented no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion that "Cal is the best research university in the US."

Has UC-Berkeley objected to the National Science Foundation numbers and rankings ? No. End of story as it shows Berkeley to be #32, not #1, and about #17 among just public research universities, again not #1.

All you are doing is proving the other posters characterization of Cal folks. Please stop with the silliness. I am not your enemy. All I did was ask for a source of support for a ridiculous claim made without any basis.

To fairly compare Cal in practice to the schools with med schools and hospitals, you could remove the hospital and medical numbers from the others or you could add the UC-SF #s to Cal's, which would make the NorCal UC schools #2 on your list...

Please just stop with your annoying nonsense. You want the folks who compile the NSF list to redo the list until your school is number one. We get it. You have once again successfully proven the other posters' comments about Cal people. Every year we read similar nonsense from Cal undergrads about the US News rankings, yet the basis for the rankings are the same for all schools in that category.

Fine. You are proud of your school. The Big Ten Conference & its media partners still don't want you. Hopefully some other conference will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, the NSF list highlights the earlier suggestion to vote Purdue off the island!

Except that Purdue is in the Big Ten Conference and Cal is homeless.

[Anonymous]

From a couple of Stanford people who are in the loop on most things in the athletic department there, it was never close for them and the Big Ten. Stanford was willing to take a big cut and now worries they really are ND dependent for the time being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless, it is easy to understand the other posters characterization of Cal based on what has been posted in this thread recently.

True. If Cal had better football and actual interest in their sports in the Bay Area, the Big Ten would have immediately invited them! They are missing the biggest part of the profile the members of an athletic conference are looking at

+1 I concede that. The Wisconsins and Minnesotas are not in the same league as UCB as universities though.

You have already demonstrated a sufficient lack of knowledge--why try to beat a dead horse ? We believe you.

[Anonymous]

Like I said, I'm not shedding tears for Cal (pretty much anyone calling it Cal isn't affiliated). I've spent plenty of time cheering against them but respect the school a lot and hope the rivalry continues!

[Anonymous]

If UCal-Berkeley folks are so smart, then why are they poor and homeless ?

Purdue isn't poor and homeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like I said, I'm not shedding tears for Cal (pretty much anyone calling it Cal isn't affiliated). I've spent plenty of time cheering against them but respect the school a lot and hope the rivalry continues!

Take a peek at Cal's football helmets, then get back to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From a couple of Stanford people who are in the loop on most things in the athletic department there, it was never close for them and the Big Ten. Stanford was willing to take a big cut and now worries they really are ND dependent for the time being.

That is what I wrote many pages back.

Without a home, even Notre Dame may not want Stanford.

I cannot recall the particular article at this time, but Notre Dame wanted to protect two rivalries--USC & Navy. No mention of Stanford.