There's been lots of 'discussion' here regarding the realignment of college football and new Big Ten members. Lots of factors have been put forward on why various schools should be added to the Big Ten, including TV markets, how recruiting would be enhanced, etc. None of these factors are likely to influence the presidents of the Big Ten schools because none of them effects the most important factor that will be considered--which schools who might apply or will be considered as new members will enhance the revenue from research awards to Big Ten schools? The presidents are almost certain to follow the money.
When it comes to choosing new member schools, the income or advantages they might provide from athletics are dwarfed by the potential income they might provide from academic capabilities and pursuits. The Big Ten has policy that all prospective member schools be members of the American Association of Universities (AAU). The AAU is a qualification for only a small minority of universities in the U.S.--only about 65 schools--which are recognized as the leading American research universities devoted to maintaining a strong system of academic research and education. But why is that qualification important? Because it defines those schools which are most likely to be successful in being awarded research grants and contracts.
So how does that impact upon the Big Ten presidents considering new conference members? What's that got to do with following the money? Maybe examining and contrasting income from academic and research pursuits with the economics of athletics might help understanding. Consider the following:
Contrast athletic budgets with income from research awards. In 2020 Michigan received $1.67 billion in research grant awards and contracts. So athletic expenditures were only about 12% of research awards. Those research grants provided almost half of the funding of the university other than the largest source of funds, tuition and fees, and only slightly less than funding received from the State of Michigan.
But again, the "numbers" associated with Michigan athletics are:
------------------
If you've taken the time to read and understand the economics of Big Ten athletics compared to the potential revenues available from research grants, it should be easy to understand how the Big Ten presidents will stand firm on only admitting new member schools with superb academic qualifications such as being an AAU member. Big Ten schools average the highest research grant awards compared to any conference, and it isn’t even close. For the period 2015-20 the average total research grant awards per Big Ten school was about $4.4 billion. Remember, during that same five-year period the total expenditures for athletics for all 14 member schools totaled about $500 million, less than 10% of the revenues from research!
I think you can probably see that there aren't any athletic issues that are going to influence the Big Ten presidents in governing the conference to maximize revenues received from research activities. That includes approving only new members that are recognized research institutions.
When it comes to choosing new member schools, the income or advantages they might provide from athletics are dwarfed by the potential income they might provide from academic capabilities and pursuits. The Big Ten has policy that all prospective member schools be members of the American Association of Universities (AAU). The AAU is a qualification for only a small minority of universities in the U.S.--only about 65 schools--which are recognized as the leading American research universities devoted to maintaining a strong system of academic research and education. But why is that qualification important? Because it defines those schools which are most likely to be successful in being awarded research grants and contracts.
So how does that impact upon the Big Ten presidents considering new conference members? What's that got to do with following the money? Maybe examining and contrasting income from academic and research pursuits with the economics of athletics might help understanding. Consider the following:
--The total amount of research grants awarded to academic institutions is almost impossible to measure accurately. But it is generally accepted that the National Institutes of Health awards by far the largest number and amount of competitively bid research grants.
--In FY2020 the NIH awarded $30.8 billion in research grants to universities, hospitals, small businesses, and other research organizations throughout the U.S. The awards were almost all competitively bid by the organizations who would perform the research. Of course the qualifications and experience of the researchers were important in choosing the winning bidders. As might be expected, the most qualified research universities dominated in achieving awards.
--There were 56,169 competitive bids for the $30.8 billion in grants and awards.
--There were 56,169 competitive bids for the $30.8 billion in grants and awards.
--The $30.8 billion in awards and follow-on research contracts were awarded to 11,332 applicants, a competitive success rate of 20.6%, with an average grant of $566,744.
--The number and amount of available grants and awards has grown at a rate of about 4% per year.
Let's contrast that with the economics of athletics. The total budget of the Michigan athletic department last year was about $200 million, funded totally by income from athletics. Among Big Ten schools Michigan and Ohio State had by far the largest athletic budgets, contrasted with Purdue, Rutgers and Maryland, all with athletic budgets of slightly more than $100 million per year. The total athletic budgets of all 14 Big Ten schools has been about $2 billion per year.Contrast athletic budgets with income from research awards. In 2020 Michigan received $1.67 billion in research grant awards and contracts. So athletic expenditures were only about 12% of research awards. Those research grants provided almost half of the funding of the university other than the largest source of funds, tuition and fees, and only slightly less than funding received from the State of Michigan.
But again, the "numbers" associated with Michigan athletics are:
--A total budget of about $200 million
--Receipts from the Big Ten's 1977 TV rights contract were about $34 million. The new contract currently being signed is expected to produce annual payments to each Big Ten team of about $78 million. If new conference members are admitted, such as the two Los Angeles schools, that contract would be re-negotiated with a much larger payout expected.
--TV rights payments to most of the Big Ten member schools will totally fund their athletic budgets, with substantial amounts available for their general fund expenditures.
------------------
If you've taken the time to read and understand the economics of Big Ten athletics compared to the potential revenues available from research grants, it should be easy to understand how the Big Ten presidents will stand firm on only admitting new member schools with superb academic qualifications such as being an AAU member. Big Ten schools average the highest research grant awards compared to any conference, and it isn’t even close. For the period 2015-20 the average total research grant awards per Big Ten school was about $4.4 billion. Remember, during that same five-year period the total expenditures for athletics for all 14 member schools totaled about $500 million, less than 10% of the revenues from research!
I think you can probably see that there aren't any athletic issues that are going to influence the Big Ten presidents in governing the conference to maximize revenues received from research activities. That includes approving only new members that are recognized research institutions.
Last edited:
