So... What if Texas wanted in the Big Ten and compensated B1G for appearances on LHN?

[dayooper]

B1G has a history of going after Flagship / AAU schools. Neb, PSU, MD and Rutgers. Believe we should be informed by this ‘recent’ activity and ask why would future B1G moves deviate significantly from the past? Not many schools fit this B1G ‘profile.’ Would imagine those few who do are targets. Those who do not, well, you know...

Is AAU a requirement? If it is, than Nebraska should have never been asked. Michigan and Wisconsin led the charge to get Nebraska removed from the Big10. I highly doubt that the Big10 presidents didn't know they were about to be voted out (a vote was planned the year before and was scrapped because there wasn't enough support). I know there are people who say ". . . but they were AAU when they were invited and accepted." Why would that matter? It's not an NCAA rule or even a Big10 rule as far as we know. So UConn, with their research upgrades (their candidacy has been discussed here) and Oklahoma (not an academic powerhouse, but is a Tier 1 Carnegie school). Both have been vetted by the Big10. Couldn't tell you if their findings support entry, but they have been scrutinized.

As far as VT, they are a very respected school, especially in the STEM fields (#61 according to USNWR) with a great grad research program. Some say that, along with Arizona St and Georgia,they are close to being next in line to be offered a spot in the AAU. They already have great academic relationships with PSU and Maryland. That fits the Big10 profile pretty well. Throw in that hey are bigger, have more students and close to, if not more alumni than UVA with great fan support, they act like a flagship school.

The Big10 wants an East Coast/Mid-Atlantic presence, It seems that, barring a total collapse from the ACC, UVA and UNC are staying put. VT may be willing consider a move. I think that The Big10 would welcome them if UVA said (and like would) say no.

 

[dayooper]

The LHN is unworkable with the ACC as well. That is unless the only thing Texas would show on it are home football games like Notre Dame does with NBC. The ACC would require the rights to all the non-football programs like it does with Notre Dame, and that would leave the LHN without content. ESPN would have to subsidize the LHN while paying the ACC for Texas content, and I'm not sure they would want to do that.

I'm not sure it would work that way. My thought is that The LHN would keep whatever ESPN didn't use. ESPN plays Texas basketball games on their non LHN channels. My guess is that would continue as ESPN would own ACC's rights along with Texas'. There would probably be a stipulation for several bb games, but I'm sure The ACC and ESPN would work out that deal. ESPN doesn't show much non football/non basketball content anyway. If an ACC channel came to fruition, my guess is that the LHN would be merged and Texas would be paid at the LHN rate until the deal was up.

 

[btstimpy]

I'm not sure it would work that way. My thought is that The LHN would keep whatever ESPN didn't use. ESPN plays Texas basketball games on their non LHN channels. My guess is that would continue as ESPN would own ACC's rights along with Texas'. There would probably be a stipulation for several bb games, but I'm sure The ACC and ESPN would work out that deal. ESPN doesn't show much non football/non basketball content anyway. If an ACC channel came to fruition, my guess is that the LHN would be merged and Texas would be paid at the LHN rate until the deal was up.

Ok. If ESPN wanted to create some strategy to merge the two and subsidize both sides until that happens, it could work. The basketball content you're describing today goes to Raycom and ESPN3 for the ACC. In the future, some of it would go onto the ACC Channel if it comes to fruition. If they put it on the LHN, then it would work as long as ESPN makes both parties whole as I mentioned.

But in general I don't know if Texas would want to be a geographic island in the ACC. I would think this would work only if they brought other friends from the Big XII with an ACC going to 18 or 20 members. I don't know that the ACC wants that many members at this point.

 

[Thirdelement]

I wonder about balance between East and West in any B1G expansion. In terms of football you have long term powers Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State in the East Division. You also have a strong Michigan State program.

In the West you have long term power Nebraska and a strong program in Wisconsin.

I think it would be very hard to convince any of the strong Eastern Division Schools to move West. For balance, Oklahoma would be a great addition.

 

[dayooper]

But in general I don't know if Texas would want to be a geographic island in the ACC. I would think this would work only if they brought other friends from the Big XII with an ACC going to 18 or 20 members. I don't know that the ACC wants that many members at this point.

Yeah, I think it would be pretty difficult. That would a pretty big island to deal with. In my opinion, the ACC wants no part of Okie St, KSU, Baylor, TCU, or Iowa St. We know they don't want WVU. I think, if Texas were to go somewhere, it's to either the Pac or Big10.

 

[dayooper]

I wonder about balance between East and West in any B1G expansion. In terms of football you have long term powers Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State in the East Division. You also have a strong Michigan State program.

In the West you have long term power Nebraska and a strong program in Wisconsin.

I think it would be very hard to convince any of the strong Eastern Division Schools to move West. For balance, Oklahoma would be a great addition.

I think you could get MSU to move. They have always recruited Chicago well and have many alumni in that area. Move Purdue East and MSU west might balance things out somewhat.

 

[pj]

The LHN is unworkable with the ACC as well. That is unless the only thing Texas would show on it are home football games like Notre Dame does with NBC. The ACC would require the rights to all the non-football programs like it does with Notre Dame, and that would leave the LHN without content. ESPN would have to subsidize the LHN while paying the ACC for Texas content, and I'm not sure they would want to do that.

Nonsense. The reason Notre Dame includes its non-football sports in the ACC ESPN deal is because it has no TV contract for them. Texas has through the LHN its own deal for that content ... so it would carve them out of an ACC deal in the same way it would its football content. That means the ACC would not pay Texas for its content; Texas would market its own content.

The advantage of the deal to the ACC is they own all the home games involving Texas, so they get valuable content. They also please their master ESPN, helping it keep its property away from the B1G or Pac.

 

[CONN Ed]

Research funding is stagnant and will stay stagnant to declining. That makes the AAU, a lobbying organization, of less significance every year. Meanwhile athletic revenue is rising. They are not going to sacrifice athletic interests to an AAU requirement. It is enough that the schools are "close to AAU" and emphasizing research, i.e. fitting the B1G cultural profile. Both UConn and Va Tech are close to AAU and working to be more like a B1G school research-wise.

The B1G will want public state universities with major fan loyalty throughout the state among non-alumni residents. Virgina Tech would fit that as well as UVa, so it doesn't matter which one is the "flagship".

I’m not suggesting you are wrong, but I might need source material before I just accept your statement “Research funding is stagnant and will stay stagnant to declining.” Even with source material, to suggest research funding will stay stagnant to declining requires a willingness to go along with a boat load of assumptions. It is my personal experience the future is pretty hard to see. Also, why would UConn and Va Tech want to be like B1G schools re research? Based on your statement regarding research funding there would be diminishing returns on their investment.

I don’t know if “close to AAU” is good enough. You seem to feel it is and that’s good enough for me, notwithstanding history has indicated otherwise.

 

[pj]

I’m not suggesting you are wrong, but I might need source material before I just accept your statement “Research funding is stagnant and will stay stagnant to declining.” Even with source material, to suggest research funding will stay stagnant to declining requires a willingness to go along with a boat load of assumptions. It is my personal experience the future is pretty hard to see. Also, why would UConn and Va Tech want to be like B1G schools re research? Based on your statement regarding research funding there would be diminishing returns on their investment.

I don’t know if “close to AAU” is good enough. You seem to feel it is and that’s good enough for me, notwithstanding history has indicated otherwise.

Research funding is falling as a share of the federal budget due to entitlements growing much faster than revenue. Federal budget cannot grow relative to GDP. The economy is not growing fast if at all. Multiple the growth rates together and you get federal research funding topping in absolute dollar amounts and starting to fall.

The peak in federal research funding was in 2011 with stimulus spending. 2014 federal research spending was approximately equal to 2004 spending. It is heading down.

 

[pj]

This one is a little old and doesn't capture the continued slide or the 2011 stimulus temporary peak, but it shows NIH funding peaking in 2007-8 and basically not growing: This is not corrected for inflation, in real terms the situation is worse.

 

[btstimpy]

Nonsense. The reason Notre Dame includes its non-football sports in the ACC ESPN deal is because it has no TV contract for them. Texas has through the LHN its own deal for that content ... so it would carve them out of an ACC deal in the same way it would its football content. That means the ACC would not pay Texas for its content; Texas would market its own content.

The advantage of the deal to the ACC is they own all the home games involving Texas, so they get valuable content. They also please their master ESPN, helping it keep its property away from the B1G or Pac.

The ACC would do a scheduling alliance with Texas before doing anything like you suggest. There isn't much more to gain if Texas doesn't participate like the rest of the league. And like I mentioned in another post, having 1 Texas school in the ACC creates an island which is not good. I've watched the enthusiasm of all the local West Virginia fans go downhill over the past 3 years over it. They liked travelling to road games, and it is very hard to do that now.

There would be an interest to have 4 or 5 from the Big XII to get to 20 if something like this were to take place creating a whole division in the southwest. And I agree with you that if something like this were to happen ESPN would be orchestrating it.

 

[CoastAtlantic]

Nonsense. The reason Notre Dame includes its non-football sports in the ACC ESPN deal is because it has no TV contract for them. Texas has through the LHN its own deal for that content ... so it would carve them out of an ACC deal in the same way it would its football content. That means the ACC would not pay Texas for its content; Texas would market its own content.

The advantage of the deal to the ACC is they own all the home games involving Texas, so they get valuable content. They also please their master ESPN, helping it keep its property away from the B1G or Pac.

You mean Texas road games against ACC opponents. That's only two/three/four games a year, depending on how many games are agreed. I would think that if Texas comes over that an opportunity is there to get into to state of Texas even further. TCU and Baylor would be good pickups as they fit in with the private schools, plus bring in all of their other sports for a possible ACC Network.

 

[auggie22]

B1G has a history of going after Flagship / AAU schools. Neb, PSU, MD and Rutgers. Believe we should be informed by this ‘recent’ activity and ask why would future B1G moves deviate significantly from the past? Not many schools fit this B1G ‘profile.’ Would imagine those few who do are targets. Those who do not, well, you know...

Witch!

 

[CONN Ed]

Research funding is falling as a share of the federal budget due to entitlements growing much faster than revenue. Federal budget cannot grow relative to GDP. The economy is not growing fast if at all. Multiple the growth rates together and you get federal research funding topping in absolute dollar amounts and starting to fall.

The peak in federal research funding was in 2011 with stimulus spending. 2014 federal research spending was approximately equal to 2004 spending. It is heading down.

Excellent… I JUST GOT SCHOOLED! What, you do this full time? While I truly appreciate the effort, you changed the discussion from ‘real terms’ to ‘percentage’ or ‘share’. That’s a no-no. R&D funding can go down as a percentage of spending yet rise in real terms. Also, funding for R&D in hardly the exclusive domain of Uncle Sam – though our uncle is the largest provider of said funds. Additionally, based on the information provided one cannot conclude funding is falling (if it is falling) due to entitlements growing faster than rev. Perhaps correct, but not supported. One additional point: Yes, the Federal budget can (unfortunately) grow relative to GDP

Oh, you may find this interesting: You stated “The economy is not growing fast if at all.” According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, estimated real GDP for the third quarter of 2014 increased at an annual rate of 5%. Adjusted second quarter results, 4.6%. Not on fire, true. But getting near Goldilocks’ neighborhood. Dig it?

 

[DarthGrumpy]

I think you could get MSU to move. They have always recruited Chicago well and have many alumni in that area. Move Purdue East and MSU west might balance things out somewhat.

All B1G schools recruit athletes and students well from Chicago. Separating Michigan St from Michigan would be a problem though. That is a major rival for State. The B1G would have to offer Michigan and Michigan St as a fixed cross-over game every season.

 

[pj]

Excellent… I JUST GOT SCHOOLED! What, you do this full time? While I truly appreciate the effort, you changed the discussion from ‘real terms’ to ‘percentage’ or ‘share’. That’s a no-no. R&D funding can go down as a percentage of spending yet rise in real terms. Also, funding for R&D in hardly the exclusive domain of Uncle Sam – though our uncle is the largest provider of said funds. Additionally, based on the information provided one cannot conclude funding is falling (if it is falling) due to entitlements growing faster than rev. Perhaps correct, but not supported. One additional point: Yes, the Federal budget can (unfortunately) grow relative to GDP

Oh, you may find this interesting: You stated “The economy is not growing fast if at all.” According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, estimated real GDP for the third quarter of 2014 increased at an annual rate of 5%. Adjusted second quarter results, 4.6%. Not on fire, true. But getting near Goldilocks’ neighborhood. Dig it?

Give it time. You have to look at numbers smoothed over the business cycle. Labor participation has been declining, real wages have been stagnant, the growth has been in debt and incomes of the top 10%. Debt-funded gains in capital income are prone to reversal when debt growth stops or reverses.

Federal research funding is dominant, and it is what the AAU focuses on.

Percentage, share, real funding, and nominal funding are all connected. With real growth under 2%, inflation under 2%, government spending is limited to about 3% growth in normal terms. Entitlements are growing much faster than that, meaning that discretionary spending will be declining.

 

[CONN Ed]

Give it time. You have to look at numbers smoothed over the business cycle. Labor participation has been declining, real wages have been stagnant, the growth has been in debt and incomes of the top 10%. Debt-funded gains in capital income are prone to reversal when debt growth stops or reverses.

Federal research funding is dominant, and it is what the AAU focuses on.

Percentage, share, real funding, and nominal funding are all connected. With real growth under 2%, inflation under 2%, government spending is limited to about 3% growth in normal terms. Entitlements are growing much faster than that, meaning that discretionary spending will be declining.

I’m not sure we are even talking about the same thing anymore. Yes, you have to look at numbers smoothed over the business cycle… a macro view. Yes, labor participation has been declining - recent ‘gains’ are from people no longer seeking employment, thus not included in the unemployment figures. Yes, real wages have been stagnant.

Now you lose me.

“Growth has been in debt and incomes of the top 10%?” Growth in debt of the top 10%? Is this your point? Is this an issue?

“Debt-funded gains in capital income are prone to reversal when debt growth stops or reverses.” This isn’t even a ‘thing’. This sentence doesn’t even make sense. What kind of debt are we even talking about?

“Federal research funding is dominant” …a point with which I have already agreed.

“Percentage, share, real funding, and nominal funding are all connected.” Sure, by the word ‘funding.’ Beyond that they are dissimilar and unique.

“With real growth under 2%”…a touch low, but ok…

“Inflation under 2%” …fine…

“Government spending is limited to about 3% growth in normal terms.” Government spending increase year to year? Government funding for R&D year to year? Government spending on ‘WHAT’?

“Entitlements are growing much faster than that” …faster than that…faster than what? 3% of what?

“Meaning that discretionary spending will be declining.” ...as entitlement spending increases. Sure, as long as nothing else in the freaking country changes, like revenue increases, reductions in the size of the gov. (not likely). This is not an ‘all things being equal’ situation, this is fluid.

Look, you don’t need to reply to this. Actually, please don’t. I’ll concede the point, whatever it originally was….

 

[pj]

The point is that if we revisit this topic in 4 years, 10 years, 20 years, or 40 years, federal research funding will be no higher than it is now, and probably lower. Because the whole budget is being squeezed by entitlement growth and research is politically weak compared to other claimants.

You can play obtuse, but this is the central issue for the people who lead the AAU and for the university presidents who are their masters.

 

[CONN Ed]

The point is that if we revisit this topic in 4 years, 10 years, 20 years, or 40 years, federal research funding will be no higher than it is now, and probably lower. Because the whole budget is being squeezed by entitlement growth and research is politically weak compared to other claimants.

You can play obtuse, but this is the central issue for the people who lead the AAU and for the university presidents who are their masters.

Fine, thanks for ‘not responding.’ I am NOT obtuse (well, maybe). Rather, you present your information in such a way as not to be understood (the graph was fine). You lack clarity and precision. If we must continue – and it would appear we must – go back and answer some of my questions. Clean it up a bit. Then I may respond to a question with an answer. PJ, you paint in very broad strokes my friend, and make far too many assumptions - not that you asked.

 

[Kolumbo]

random interjection - Texas, TAMU, Kansas, and Mizzou to the B1G. That basically wraps up the AAU schools. Or go the UVA, UNC, G-Tech, Vandy route. Or all of the above.
AAU - Get 'em while they're hot!

 

[pj]

Fine, thanks for ‘not responding.’ I am NOT obtuse (well, maybe). Rather, you present your information in such a way as not to be understood (the graph was fine). You lack clarity and precision. If we must continue – and it would appear we must – go back and answer some of my questions. Clean it up a bit. Then I may respond to a question with an answer. PJ, you paint in very broad strokes my friend, and make far too many assumptions - not that you asked.

Obviously I'm making assumptions, and a sports message board is no place for a detailed treatise. But you don't need much in the way of assumptions to make my prediction come true -- just a knowledge of arithmetic, and a few facts. Entitlements are growing faster than GDP, and will continue to do so for demographic reasons that are already baked in (baby boom retirements, reduced fertility among natives, immigration concentrated among high welfare consuming groups, increasing single parenthood, non-growth of median and lower wages). Federal spending cannot grow faster than GDP over any extended time period. Simple extrapolation of growth rates means that there will come a time when entitlements constitute 100% of federal spending, and discretionary spending has approached zero. We are already at the point where the less politically powerful discretionary categories are getting squeezed. There is no sign of a political desire or will to constrain entitlement spending in order to preserve discretionary spending. On the contrary, the entitlements are being expanded (e.g. Obamacare, proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants enabling them to receive welfare) and discretionary spending cut.

There would have to be a radical change in our political culture and the priorities of the parties in order to avert a fall in federal research funding. There is no sign that it will happen. Entitlements are too popular.

 

[CONN Ed]

Obviously I'm making assumptions, and a sports message board is no place for a detailed treatise. But you don't need much in the way of assumptions to make my prediction come true -- just a knowledge of arithmetic, and a few facts. Entitlements are growing faster than GDP, and will continue to do so for demographic reasons that are already baked in (baby boom retirements, reduced fertility among natives, immigration concentrated among high welfare consuming groups, increasing single parenthood, non-growth of median and lower wages). Federal spending cannot grow faster than GDP over any extended time period. Simple extrapolation of growth rates means that there will come a time when entitlements constitute 100% of federal spending, and discretionary spending has approached zero. We are already at the point where the less politically powerful discretionary categories are getting squeezed. There is no sign of a political desire or will to constrain entitlement spending in order to preserve discretionary spending. On the contrary, the entitlements are being expanded (e.g. Obamacare, proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants enabling them to receive welfare) and discretionary spending cut.

There would have to be a radical change in our political culture and the priorities of the parties in order to avert a fall in federal research funding. There is no sign that it will happen. Entitlements are too popular.

I have been sufficiently humbled by your argument. (Are we done now?)