Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
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.
Correct.
Based on the National Science Foundation R&D Expenditures report, UCal-Berkeley would rank eleventh (#11) among the Big Ten Conference schools, yet it would definitely be among the top 5 schools for academics.
The Big Ten Conference and its media partners (Fox, NBC, & CBS and BTN) were primarily assessing the added value of football programs among other factors during its most recent round of expansion.
Across the board, it would be at the top. For USNWR graduate program top 10 rankings, Berkeley and Michigan are tied for 1st with 59 top 10 (Stanford is 3rd with 56). But Berkeley's average ranking is higher than Michigan and it achieves its first place rank without having a medical school. As noted, UC San Francisco is rated separately.
Wow ! Clearly, you do not understand or appreciate the culture of the Big Ten Conference member schools.
Okay. Let's assume that UCal-Berkeley is the best school in the universe and ranked at the top for everything except value of its football program to the Big Ten Conference and its broadcast affiliates--What would change ?
The Ivy League is an athletic conference as well.
Anonymous wrote: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.
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.
Correct.
Based on the National Science Foundation R&D Expenditures report, UCal-Berkeley would rank eleventh (#11) among the Big Ten Conference schools, yet it would definitely be among the top 5 schools for academics.
The Big Ten Conference and its media partners (Fox, NBC, & CBS and BTN) were primarily assessing the added value of football programs among other factors during its most recent round of expansion.
Across the board, it would be at the top. For USNWR graduate program top 10 rankings, Berkeley and Michigan are tied for 1st with 59 top 10 (Stanford is 3rd with 56). But Berkeley's average ranking is higher than Michigan and it achieves its first place rank without having a medical school. As noted, UC San Francisco is rated separately.
Anonymous wrote:The research element of this thread is a red herring. Big Ten is primarily interested in media market value.
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.
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.
Correct.
Based on the National Science Foundation R&D Expenditures report, UCal-Berkeley would rank eleventh (#11) among the Big Ten Conference schools, yet it would definitely be among the top 5 schools for academics.
The Big Ten Conference and its media partners (Fox, NBC, & CBS and BTN) were primarily assessing the added value of football programs among other factors during its most recent round of expansion.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Will the B1G stay where it will be in 2024 for 3+ years?
I think the B1G is done unless it ND joins.
Anonymous wrote:I know the conferences have been realigning on a football axis, but some schools like Kansas, UNC, Duke, etc. have revenue generating basketball programs that aren’t insignificant either. I’d wager that Duke’s basketball program is an attractive target, and their football program has had a similar or better track record than Stanford’s in recent years.
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:Will the B1G stay where it will be in 2024 for 3+ years?
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:Cal fits what the Big Ten wants schools to be more than anything on the academic side. It is the best public research institution in the US and is the flagship university in a key state. That profile just doesn't matter for sports $$ right now though.
You have to remember that schools like Purdue, Northwestern, and Minnesota would never be invited to the party if things were being formed today. They're much more like Cal, Stanford, and Oregon State in adding value than Michigan or Ohio State.
(OP here):
Do you have any basis for your claim that "UCal-Berkeley is the best public research institution in the US" ?
Are you familiar with the National Science Foundation R&D Expenditures list ? UCal-Berkeley is the 32nd highest, not the first.