Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://research.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VOR_FY22.pdf

Michigan receives over $1,000,000,000 yearly in funding from sources other than the NIH. That’s still more than Berkeley. Internally funded research is also over $500,000,000.

Michigan and Berkeley would consider each other academic peers but not peers with places like Minnesota, Purdue, or Michigan State. I think the point is more Berkeley would clearly be in the top few academic schools in the B1G and not close to the bottom as someone was trying to hint at with some strange funding stats. If it is the #1 or #3 overall public research university in the country, that is splitting hairs.

Is this a reference to the Federal Government's National Science Foundation R&D Expenditures report ?

Yes. The source of all strange funding stats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://research.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VOR_FY22.pdf

Michigan receives over $1,000,000,000 yearly in funding from sources other than the NIH. That’s still more than Berkeley. Internally funded research is also over $500,000,000.

Michigan and Berkeley would consider each other academic peers but not peers with places like Minnesota, Purdue, or Michigan State. I think the point is more Berkeley would clearly be in the top few academic schools in the B1G and not close to the bottom as someone was trying to hint at with some strange funding stats. If it is the #1 or #3 overall public research university in the country, that is splitting hairs.

Is this a reference to the Federal Government's National Science Foundation R&D Expenditures report ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://research.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VOR_FY22.pdf

Michigan receives over $1,000,000,000 yearly in funding from sources other than the NIH. That’s still more than Berkeley. Internally funded research is also over $500,000,000.

Michigan and Berkeley would consider each other academic peers but not peers with places like Minnesota, Purdue, or Michigan State. I think the point is more Berkeley would clearly be in the top few academic schools in the B1G and not close to the bottom as someone was trying to hint at with some strange funding stats. If it is the #1 or #3 overall public research university in the country, that is splitting hairs.

I agree. The Big Ten would want Berkeley because of its academics and prestige. However, Berkeley would not be one, two, or three in the conference as far research $$$ totals. The facts are indisputable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://research.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VOR_FY22.pdf

Michigan receives over $1,000,000,000 yearly in funding from sources other than the NIH. That’s still more than Berkeley. Internally funded research is also over $500,000,000.

Michigan and Berkeley would consider each other academic peers but not peers with places like Minnesota, Purdue, or Michigan State. I think the point is more Berkeley would clearly be in the top few academic schools in the B1G and not close to the bottom as someone was trying to hint at with some strange funding stats. If it is the #1 or #3 overall public research university in the country, that is splitting hairs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://research.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VOR_FY22.pdf

Michigan receives over $1,000,000,000 yearly in funding from sources other than the NIH. That’s still more than Berkeley. Internally funded research is also over $500,000,000.

Michigan and Berkeley would consider each other academic peers but not peers with places like Minnesota, Purdue, or Michigan State. I think the point is more Berkeley would clearly be in the top few academic schools in the B1G and not close to the bottom as someone was trying to hint at with some strange funding stats. If it is the #1 or #3 overall public research university in the country, that is splitting hairs.

Anonymous wrote:https://research.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VOR_FY22.pdf

Michigan receives over $1,000,000,000 yearly in funding from sources other than the NIH. That’s still more than Berkeley. Internally funded research is also over $500,000,000.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP here):

Everyone acknowledges the University of California at Berkeley as one of the greatest educational institutions in the world as is, of course, Stanford University.

Why the Big Ten Conference did not extend offers to these academic & research powerhouses is not crystal clear, but my best guess is that the media partners just did not see the return on their investment at this time. Might be a bit short-sighted as opportunities to unite/go-in-business-with Stanford and UCal-Berkeley are rare.

Personally, I think that the Big Ten Conference has a moral obligation to extend offers to both universities and that the rewards for all parties will quickly be realized. I cannot imagine a single Big Ten President or Administrator who wouldn't love to be associated with both Stanford & UCal-Berkeley.

I still think the B1G will eventually add Stanford and Berkeley for academic and geographic reasons.

Interesting thought, but there is a timeline that should be of concern. Once USC & UCLA become members of the Big Ten Conference next year (2024) each will have a vote regarding conference expansion and they may vote to protect their recruiting area which overlaps with that of UCal-Berkeley & Stanford.

There is still time and there are a lot of creative, brilliant minds working on this.

Realignment is not complete, but timetables differ.

Moral obligation? For football?

Yes.

The primary reason for the collapse of the Pac-12 was bad management. Poorly run for well over a decade--even turning down the opportunity to add the University of Texas and Oklahoma as a package deal. The Pac-12 network was, and is, an inferior entity delivering a shoddy product.

Additionally, the Pac-12 disintegrated, in part, because the Big Ten Conference & USC wanted to be in business together.

The Big Ten Conference envisioned adding USC & Notre Dame, but Notre Dame decided to remain as an independent. The Big Ten then considered the University of Oregon, but UCLA wanted in & media partners loved (and love) the LA media market.

Unknown to many, UCLA really needed the extra funds for its athletic department as UCLA athletics was running at a deficit.

Stanford and Berkeley blocking Oklahoma and then Nevada and SDSU for academic reasons is a big part of why they are here. They’re were arrogant and now they are either going to be independent or G5 schools.

I still think the B1G will eventually add Stanford and Berkeley for academic and geographic reasons.

Just add Stanford and Note Dame instead

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP here):

Everyone acknowledges the University of California at Berkeley as one of the greatest educational institutions in the world as is, of course, Stanford University.

Why the Big Ten Conference did not extend offers to these academic & research powerhouses is not crystal clear, but my best guess is that the media partners just did not see the return on their investment at this time. Might be a bit short-sighted as opportunities to unite/go-in-business-with Stanford and UCal-Berkeley are rare.

Personally, I think that the Big Ten Conference has a moral obligation to extend offers to both universities and that the rewards for all parties will quickly be realized. I cannot imagine a single Big Ten President or Administrator who wouldn't love to be associated with both Stanford & UCal-Berkeley.

There is still time and there are a lot of creative, brilliant minds working on this.

Realignment is not complete, but timetables differ.

Moral obligation? For football?

Yes.

The primary reason for the collapse of the Pac-12 was bad management. Poorly run for well over a decade--even turning down the opportunity to add the University of Texas and Oklahoma as a package deal. The Pac-12 network was, and is, an inferior entity delivering a shoddy product.

Additionally, the Pac-12 disintegrated, in part, because the Big Ten Conference & USC wanted to be in business together.

The Big Ten Conference envisioned adding USC & Notre Dame, but Notre Dame decided to remain as an independent. The Big Ten then considered the University of Oregon, but UCLA wanted in & media partners loved (and love) the LA media market.

Unknown to many, UCLA really needed the extra funds for its athletic department as UCLA athletics was running at a deficit.

Stanford and Berkeley blocking Oklahoma and then Nevada and SDSU for academic reasons is a big part of why they are here. They’re were arrogant and now they are either going to be independent or G5 schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP here):

Everyone acknowledges the University of California at Berkeley as one of the greatest educational institutions in the world as is, of course, Stanford University.

Why the Big Ten Conference did not extend offers to these academic & research powerhouses is not crystal clear, but my best guess is that the media partners just did not see the return on their investment at this time. Might be a bit short-sighted as opportunities to unite/go-in-business-with Stanford and UCal-Berkeley are rare.

Personally, I think that the Big Ten Conference has a moral obligation to extend offers to both universities and that the rewards for all parties will quickly be realized. I cannot imagine a single Big Ten President or Administrator who wouldn't love to be associated with both Stanford & UCal-Berkeley.

I still think the B1G will eventually add Stanford and Berkeley for academic and geographic reasons.

Interesting thought, but there is a timeline that should be of concern. Once USC & UCLA become members of the Big Ten Conference next year (2024) each will have a vote regarding conference expansion and they may vote to protect their recruiting area which overlaps with that of UCal-Berkeley & Stanford.

There is still time and there are a lot of creative, brilliant minds working on this.

Realignment is not complete, but timetables differ.

Moral obligation? For football?

Yes.

The primary reason for the collapse of the Pac-12 was bad management. Poorly run for well over a decade--even turning down the opportunity to add the University of Texas and Oklahoma as a package deal. The Pac-12 network was, and is, an inferior entity delivering a shoddy product.

Additionally, the Pac-12 disintegrated, in part, because the Big Ten Conference & USC wanted to be in business together.

The Big Ten Conference envisioned adding USC & Notre Dame, but Notre Dame decided to remain as an independent. The Big Ten then considered the University of Oregon, but UCLA wanted in & media partners loved (and love) the LA media market.

Unknown to many, UCLA really needed the extra funds for its athletic department as UCLA athletics was running at a deficit.

Stanford and Berkeley blocking Oklahoma and then Nevada and SDSU for academic reasons is a big part of why they are here. They’re were arrogant and now they are either going to be independent or G5 schools.

I still think the B1G will eventually add Stanford and Berkeley for academic and geographic reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP here):

Everyone acknowledges the University of California at Berkeley as one of the greatest educational institutions in the world as is, of course, Stanford University.

Why the Big Ten Conference did not extend offers to these academic & research powerhouses is not crystal clear, but my best guess is that the media partners just did not see the return on their investment at this time. Might be a bit short-sighted as opportunities to unite/go-in-business-with Stanford and UCal-Berkeley are rare.

Personally, I think that the Big Ten Conference has a moral obligation to extend offers to both universities and that the rewards for all parties will quickly be realized. I cannot imagine a single Big Ten President or Administrator who wouldn't love to be associated with both Stanford & UCal-Berkeley.

I still think the B1G will eventually add Stanford and Berkeley for academic and geographic reasons.

Interesting thought, but there is a timeline that should be of concern. Once USC & UCLA become members of the Big Ten Conference next year (2024) each will have a vote regarding conference expansion and they may vote to protect their recruiting area which overlaps with that of UCal-Berkeley & Stanford.

There is still time and there are a lot of creative, brilliant minds working on this.

Realignment is not complete, but timetables differ.

Moral obligation? For football?

Yes.

The primary reason for the collapse of the Pac-12 was bad management. Poorly run for well over a decade--even turning down the opportunity to add the University of Texas and Oklahoma as a package deal. The Pac-12 network was, and is, an inferior entity delivering a shoddy product.

Additionally, the Pac-12 disintegrated, in part, because the Big Ten Conference & USC wanted to be in business together.

The Big Ten Conference envisioned adding USC & Notre Dame, but Notre Dame decided to remain as an independent. The Big Ten then considered the University of Oregon, but UCLA wanted in & media partners loved (and love) the LA media market.

Unknown to many, UCLA really needed the extra funds for its athletic department as UCLA athletics was running at a deficit.

Stanford and Berkeley blocking Oklahoma and then Nevada and SDSU for academic reasons is a big part of why they are here. They’re were arrogant and now they are either going to be independent or G5 schools.

I still think the B1G will eventually add Stanford and Berkeley for academic and geographic reasons.

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.

UC San Francisco is nothing but a medical center and is #2. Speaks to the dominance of health related R&D (and NIH).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP here):

Everyone acknowledges the University of California at Berkeley as one of the greatest educational institutions in the world as is, of course, Stanford University.

Why the Big Ten Conference did not extend offers to these academic & research powerhouses is not crystal clear, but my best guess is that the media partners just did not see the return on their investment at this time. Might be a bit short-sighted as opportunities to unite/go-in-business-with Stanford and UCal-Berkeley are rare.

Personally, I think that the Big Ten Conference has a moral obligation to extend offers to both universities and that the rewards for all parties will quickly be realized. I cannot imagine a single Big Ten President or Administrator who wouldn't love to be associated with both Stanford & UCal-Berkeley.

I still think the B1G will eventually add Stanford and Berkeley for academic and geographic reasons.

There is still time and there are a lot of creative, brilliant minds working on this.

Realignment is not complete, but timetables differ.

Moral obligation? For football?

Yes.

The primary reason for the collapse of the Pac-12 was bad management. Poorly run for well over a decade--even turning down the opportunity to add the University of Texas and Oklahoma as a package deal. The Pac-12 network was, and is, an inferior entity delivering a shoddy product.

Additionally, the Pac-12 disintegrated, in part, because the Big Ten Conference & USC wanted to be in business together.

The Big Ten Conference envisioned adding USC & Notre Dame, but Notre Dame decided to remain as an independent. The Big Ten then considered the University of Oregon, but UCLA wanted in & media partners loved (and love) the LA media market.

Unknown to many, UCLA really needed the extra funds for its athletic department as UCLA athletics was running at a deficit.

Stanford and Berkeley blocking Oklahoma and then Nevada and SDSU for academic reasons is a big part of why they are here. They’re were arrogant and now they are either going to be independent or G5 schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP here):

Everyone acknowledges the University of California at Berkeley as one of the greatest educational institutions in the world as is, of course, Stanford University.

Why the Big Ten Conference did not extend offers to these academic & research powerhouses is not crystal clear, but my best guess is that the media partners just did not see the return on their investment at this time. Might be a bit short-sighted as opportunities to unite/go-in-business-with Stanford and UCal-Berkeley are rare.

Personally, I think that the Big Ten Conference has a moral obligation to extend offers to both universities and that the rewards for all parties will quickly be realized. I cannot imagine a single Big Ten President or Administrator who wouldn't love to be associated with both Stanford & UCal-Berkeley.

I still think the B1G will eventually add Stanford and Berkeley for academic and geographic reasons.

There is still time and there are a lot of creative, brilliant minds working on this.

Realignment is not complete, but timetables differ.

Moral obligation? For football?

Yes.

The primary reason for the collapse of the Pac-12 was bad management. Poorly run for well over a decade--even turning down the opportunity to add the University of Texas and Oklahoma as a package deal. The Pac-12 network was, and is, an inferior entity delivering a shoddy product.

Additionally, the Pac-12 disintegrated, in part, because the Big Ten Conference & USC wanted to be in business together.

The Big Ten Conference envisioned adding USC & Notre Dame, but Notre Dame decided to remain as an independent. The Big Ten then considered the University of Oregon, but UCLA wanted in & media partners loved (and love) the LA media market.

Unknown to many, UCLA really needed the extra funds for its athletic department as UCLA athletics was running at a deficit.

Stanford and Berkeley blocking Oklahoma and then Nevada and SDSU for academic reasons is a big part of why they are here. They’re were arrogant and now they are either going to be independent or G5 schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP here):

Everyone acknowledges the University of California at Berkeley as one of the greatest educational institutions in the world as is, of course, Stanford University.

Why the Big Ten Conference did not extend offers to these academic & research powerhouses is not crystal clear, but my best guess is that the media partners just did not see the return on their investment at this time. Might be a bit short-sighted as opportunities to unite/go-in-business-with Stanford and UCal-Berkeley are rare.

Personally, I think that the Big Ten Conference has a moral obligation to extend offers to both universities and that the rewards for all parties will quickly be realized. I cannot imagine a single Big Ten President or Administrator who wouldn't love to be associated with both Stanford & UCal-Berkeley.

There is still time and there are a lot of creative, brilliant minds working on this.

Realignment is not complete, but timetables differ.

Moral obligation? For football?

Yes.

The primary reason for the collapse of the Pac-12 was bad management. Poorly run for well over a decade--even turning down the opportunity to add the University of Texas and Oklahoma as a package deal. The Pac-12 network was, and is, an inferior entity delivering a shoddy product.

Additionally, the Pac-12 disintegrated, in part, because the Big Ten Conference & USC wanted to be in business together.

The Big Ten Conference envisioned adding USC & Notre Dame, but Notre Dame decided to remain as an independent. The Big Ten then considered the University of Oregon, but UCLA wanted in & media partners loved (and love) the LA media market.

Unknown to many, UCLA really needed the extra funds for its athletic department as UCLA athletics was running at a deficit.