OT: Conference Expansion, does AAU membership really matter - who might be targeted?
There's been some interesting discussion about Conference Expansion - and, one element of that has been AAU (American Association of Universities) membership. I listed the AAU member schools by conference, and that list with the expected changes in the '24 season - is below.
Two athletic conferences have "100% AAU membership". Those conferences are 1) Ivy League, and 2) University Athletic Association (small / mid sized schools with a very strong academic backgrounds). This is not surprising - these schools are recognized for their academics.
Just after those two - in percentage of AAU membership - is the B1G. With the planned '24 inclusion of USC and UCLA, 15 of 16 B1G schools will be AAU members. Yes, Nebraska is the only school in the B1G that is not a member of the AAU.
The Pac-12 (or Pac-10, after USC and UCLA join the B1G), is the only other conference with greater than 50% membership. That's followed, on a percentage basis - by the ACC, SEC, and the Big 12.
Fourteen (14) other schools are AAU members, only three of those are in G5 conferences.
Any B1G expansion that may take place in the future will, IMO, be influenced by AAU membership. The B1G Presidents must vote to invite any additional schools to join the conference - and, academics & research will definitely be a factor. There's a great deal of pride by all B1G schools for their academic achievement - which will not take a back seat to athletics.
Notre Dame is an "R1 School" which reflects both their Doctoral Programs and a "Very High Level of Research Activity". However, ND is not an AAU member. ND could / will certainly be considered.
My perception is - the schools the B1G may consider adding in the future are either in the ACC or Pac today and include: Oregon, Washington, Stanford, UC-Berkeley, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, and Pitt. This seems like an inclusive list - any other schools that would be considered are be long shots.
The media markets those schools are located in will be a factor. And, unless something really creative comes up - the "payout" of each B1G school might decrease slightly because every school will get an even share, and the markets that will be added probably aren't greater than the "average" of current media distribution. What may be given up by adding a "smaller than current average" market - will be offset by share - and, the reach of the conference footprint.
The ACC appears poised to implode, the only question is - when?
What do you think?
The list by conference follows:
Combo of three things:
- (1) How much incremental $$$$$ (if any) are you bringing?
- (2) How much do we want to be associated with your academics?
- (3) How much of a diva/potential PITA are you?
Notre Dame clearly passes #1, they're "good enough" for #2, but #3 is a HUGE risk with them.
Texas (would have) passed #1 and #2, but on #3 they're almost as high-maintenance as ND.
Oklahoma (would have) passed #1 and #3, but failed #2.
University of Chicago easily passes #2 and #3, but gets a big fat F on #1.
Virginia easily passes #2 and #3 also, but they still have a sub-par grade (a D) on #1.
UC-Berkeley clearly passes #2, but fails #1 and would eventually fail #3 as well.
Et cetera, et cetera. Unfortunately, nobody is a truly "perfect" fit among all 3.
NF - great points.
On a bit of a tangent - I don't know what the agreement with Texas and the SEC looked like. I believe one point of contention in the Big 12 was the Longhorn Network and even revenue distribution, or lack thereof.
Diva / PITA - it's a great way to describe the school in South Bend. I don't see what option ND will have after the ACC implodes. Culturally - and everything else - I cannot imagine ND alumni trading their cherished independence to become part of the SEC.
The B1G will be 16 teams next season. How big will the conference eventually get? I could see 24 teams as the high water mark.
Unfortunately, (1) Incremental $$$ and (3) DIVA-ness are strongly correlated with each other. If you bring one, you likely bring the other.
Going back to the 1990s, PSU was admittedly a somewhat loud & obnoxious Diva upon entry.
Nebraska really wasn't a Diva, mostly because they had finally be-rid themselves of some other Diva (Texas).
Maryland & Rutgers were simply happy to be invited to the party.
Just give it time --- USC will be loud and obnoxious in short order.
NF - IIRC, the football coach at Penn State said at the time, the academic benefits of being a member of the Big Ten would be important.
For the record, Penn State became an AAU member in 1958, several decades before joining the Big Ten.
Yep, Paterno was always a proponent of joining the B1G --- always.
I agree with him on that one. It helped us both academically and athletically*, and it's been good for the B1G as a whole.
-----
* Many PSU folk disagree with this. I'm a bit unique from other PSU folk: I grew up in Michigan then started at PSU in 1997. So I knew a 10-team B1G, I knew an 11-team B1G, I saw the transition.
When Oklahoma leaves the Big 12 for the SEC, it will raise the academic standings of both conferences.
Touche... what a great comment... you win the internet today...
FWIW, Chicago was a member of the old Big Ten academic consortium (forget the official name) until it was rebranded the Big Ten Academic Alliance sometime in the mid 2010s, but it still participates in the activities (library agreements, doctoral course enrollment, faculty networks, etc) through some kind of affiliation agreement.
Those seem like reasonable criteria. How would UCB fail #3?
Agreed. I live on the west coast and see USC and Stanford as the divas. UCLA is a basketball school and UC Berkeley is just sort of there. If anyone else were to follow UChicago’s path, my money would be on UCB.
UCB's "Cal-imony" scheme (ensuring that some of UCLA's B1G $$$ would get funneled to Berkeley) last winter was absurd.
UCB was essentially arguing that "the better off athletic programs must help subsidize the less well off athletics programs."
Well, fair enough. But they're intellectually dishonest. You won't hear UCB arguing they shouldn't get more overall funding than anyone else in the UC system. And neither does one hear UCB arguing that any other UC school should get any of UCLA's "Cal-imony" athletic bucks.
It's all kind of silly, given UCB will always be among America's best academic schools. But they're insecure, particularly toward UCLA (some UCB folk secretly resent that UCLA even exists). This insecurity and the internecine UC and "NorCal vs. SoCal" politics would inevitably crop up again w/ both in the B1G.
Can we move Sparty to the MAC?
MAC 'n Cheese--makes perfect sense to me!
The images didn't present as I had hoped. Here is the listing by conference with their year of admittance to the AAU.
Ivy League: (8 of 8 schools - 100% AAU membership)
- Brown University (1933)
- Columbia University (1900)
- Cornell University (1900)
- Dartmouth College (2019)
- Harvard University (1900)
- Princeton University (1900)
- University of Pennsylvania (1900)
- Yale University (1900)
University Athletic Association: (8 of 8 schools - 100% AAU membership) – D3
- Brandeis University (1985)
- Carnegie Mellon University (1982)
- Case Western Reserve University (1969)
- Emory University (1995)
- New York University (1950)
- Washington University in St. Louis (1923)
- The University of Chicago (1900)
- University of Rochester (1941)
B1G: (15 of 16 teams are AAU members) – reflects the ‘24 addition of UCLA and USC
- Indiana University (1909)
- Michigan State University (1964)
- The Ohio State University (1916)
- The Pennsylvania State University (1958)
- Purdue University (1958)
- Rutgers University – New Brunswick (1989)
- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1908)
- The University of Iowa (1909)
- University of Maryland at College Park (1969)
- University of Michigan (1900)
- University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (1908)
- The University of Wisconsin – Madison (1900)
- Northwestern University (1917)
- University of California, Los Angeles (1974)
- University of Southern California (1969)
Pac-12: (7 of 10 schools are AAU members) – reflects USC and UCLA in the B1G
- The University of Arizona (1985)
- University of California, Berkeley (1900)
- University of Colorado, Boulder (1966)
- University of Oregon (1969)
- The University of Utah (2019)
- University of Washington (1950)
- Stanford University (1900)
ACC: (5 of 14 schools are AAU members)
- Georgia Institute of Technology (2010)
- The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1922)
- University of Virginia (1904)
- University of Pittsburgh (1974)
- Duke University (1938)
SEC: (5 of 16 teams are AAU members) – reflects the ’24 addition of Texas and Oklahoma
- Texas A&M University (2001)
- University of Florida (1985)
- University of Missouri, Columbia (1908)
- The University of Texas at Austin (1929)
- Vanderbilt University (1950)
Big 12: (1 of 8 schools are AAU members) – reflects the ’24 departure of Texas and Oklahoma
- The University of Kansas (1909)
Other:
- Stony Brook University – The State University of New York (2001) – Colonial Athletic Association
- University at Buffalo – The State University of New York (1989) - MAC
- University of California, Davis (1996) – Big Sky (football), Big West
- University of California, Irvine (1996) – Big West
- University of California, San Diego (1982) – Big West
- University of California, Santa Barbara (1995) – Big West
- University of California, Santa Cruz (2019) – Coast to Coast (D3)
- Boston University (2012) – Patriot League
- California Institute of Technology (1934) - SCIAC
- The Johns Hopkins University (1900) – Centennial Conference
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1934) - NEWMAC
- Rice University (1985) – Conference USA
- Tufts University (2021) - NESCAC
- Tulane University (1958) - AAC
Hard pass on Dook and their diva persona.
Georgia Tech was only admitted in 2010? After schools like UC-Davis?
Look into Davis's academics, and then you'll understand why Davis was there.
I have always wondered how many eyes Georgia Tech would bring. They are a good fit academically and they'd get our nose under the tent of the richest recruiting area in the country. I've also seen online comments by GT alumni that they think that the BIG10 would be a better cultural fit for them. Since they are located in Atlanta it would seem at least somewhat possible that a change to the BIG 10 would generate just enough interest /viewers after a change to the BIG 10 to make it worthwhile.
META: Don't drag and drop or copy and paste images into the form when creating a post. You need to use the attachment button.
TruBlu - thank you. I hope I've learned the lesson.
I think this one of those situations where perception matters more than reality. Notre Dame is perceived to be a very good academic school, so adding them doesn't besmirch the academic reputation of the conference. That being said, I think that's a minority concern for the conference behind several things that make the conference money. Virginia, Duke, Vanderbilt, etc. would all be great fits for the conference academically, but don't bring enough eyes to TV screens to make the conference money and aren't invited, but Notre Dame would be welcomed.
In my experience, within universities we rarely differentiate schools by "AAU vs. non-AAU." We often discuss placing PhD students in R1 schools (very high research activity schools with PhD programs, basically). By that standard, all 16 Big Ten schools are R1. So are Notre Dame, FSU, and Miami.
I'm not in academia and appreciate the perspective.
The number of R1 schools (as of 2021) in the US was 146. And, though I haven't looked completely, it would appear that all P5 conference schools are designated as R1.
(As time permits, I'll take a closer look to see if there's any gap - between R1 and P5.)
Yeah, academically Miami and FSU are perfectly fine schools so the AAU membership is more semantic than reality. You're certainly not going to be laughed out of a room because you got a Ph.D. from FSU or Miami.
No, you definitely would not get laughed out of the room for having a Ph.D. from those schools, but people would definitely ask how you got the degree done in that amazing weather ;-)
This is the correct take. Part of the reason FSU gets dogged when it comes to AAU is that it’s not historically a science-oriented school. While technically AAU doesn’t equate to science, my understanding is that it does matter how many research dollars are spent - and it’s significantly easier to pile up the research dollars in science than in non-science disciplines. Which makes it, basically, about science research. I personally, as a true liberal arts person, don’t believe excellent schools should be on that basis. And excluding a school on the basis of current lack AAU membership, when said school is on a path to get there, is very shortsighted. I would also argue further that when a school starts behind the eight ball on AAU compared to other schools because of past (like 100 years ago past) discriminatory practices imposed on it that altered the subject matter focus of the school it basically becomes impossible to catch up. But lo and behold FSU is catching up and will be an AAU member soon enough.
FM - I did a quick look at the Power 5 schools and their level according to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.
In the Power 5 Athletic conferences, all but two schools are designated as "R1" institutions. The two schools that aren't - are "R2" level schools. Those two R2 schools are: 1) Wake Forest University, and 2) Texas Christian University.
Thanks for pointing this out - it was a fun exercise.
I think you're completely right when it comes to faculty, less so when it comes to upper administration. For at least 3 straight presidents, one of FSU's major university goals has been to get into the AAU. It's something the higher reaches of the university take very seriously and a lot of decisionmaking in the past decade has been geared towards that goal.
Similarly, Nebraska leadership took it very seriously when they were kicked out of the AAU even if it probably had no effect on recruitment or placement in individual academic departments.
That being the case, it seems possible that the administration of FSU could think that joining the BIG10 might result in the BIG10 schools providing assistance to them in their attempt to gain AAU status including throwing their support behind the attempt. And that being the case, it would seem they might be very interested in joining the BIG10.
I have no doubt that FSU would jump at joining the Big 10 at least if Miami comes along. The only hurdle I could see to them joining is if Miami wasn't part of the deal and they'd have to have Miami and UF as two of their non-conference games a year. Those rivalries might be one of the few things more important to them than AAU status and the money a B1G TV deal would bring. Even then, I wouldn't rule out FSU joining without Miami.
Yes, Nebraska is the only school in the B1G that is not a member of the AAU.
Right. Nebraska was voted out of the AAU (apparently for having its medical school in Omaha rather than on the Lincoln campus) months after being invited to the Big Ten. According to some of the folks involved, it would not have been invited to join the conference if not for the AAU membership.
Everyone should remember that this is the silliness we are talking about when requiring AAU membership;
voted out of the AAU (apparently for having its medical school in Omaha rather than on the Lincoln campus)
Because… you know… having the medical school in a population center where the people in the state actually are is a bad thing (somehow).
This is correct. Though the academic anchor of the Big Ten, Nebraska still fills all the criteria of an AAU member other than its medical school is located 60 miles to the east.
Yes, and I believe the particular detail was about how much research money they received. Research money for medicine is obviously a large sum. When that, or at least a portion of it, was deducted from Nebraska-Lincoln's sum total, they no longer qualified for AAU.
True. OU has the same problem. OU med school is in OKC (Oklahoma City) w/the main campus obviously in Norman. OU tried to join the AAU when a certain Mi Sooner was there. If memory serves, the med school being offsite was a key factor in OU not getting into the AAU.
If the AAU counted the med schools as a part of the main campus, then both would be in.
We dont even care about non football programs when making these decisions why would AAU matter? I think the BIGTEN has tried to make a school hit all the marks but football tv money is the number one factor going forward.
There's no doubt that "football tv money" is a very noticeable factor.
However, it's the University Presidents that vote to extend membership in the conference, not the Athletic Directors.
And - if you think the University Presidents don't "care a lot" about the academic reputation of the conference - well, let's say - I would beg to differ.
You are right. The thinking probably goes like this.
1. Do they hit the revenue mark? If yes go to #2
2. Are they AAU? If so fire it up!
Exactly... Though - getting through #1 and #2 won't necessarily mean an invitation - it will mean, let's do some more Due Diligence here and determine how they will fit.
Don't forget that the Presidents are looking at Research money that is far greater than the money generated by football.
would love to get Stanford and Cal in the B1G with Pitt and Virginia. don’t care about Washington and Oregon really.
ND can go fuck itself for all I care
Stanford and Cal would bring vastly more research dollars to the B1G than Oregon and Washington, outweighing by an overwhelming amount any marginal difference in how they'd be valued for a sports network deal.
To me, Oregon and Washington make so much sense, I have to imagine they would be part of any expansion. They check the boxes for academics (AAU), have competitive athletics, and expand the B1G footprint. I imagine USC and UCLA are looking for some company so they don't have to travel east so much.
Aside from that, it's hard to say what would come of the southeastern schools. UNC and GT seem like good choices, but I don't think you can get UNC without Duke and/or NC State, and those are less palatable options to me. I've heard more recent speculation about FSU and Miami, and while those schools don't check the AAU box, those would be great additions from an athletics perspective.
So if 24 is the goal, then my next 8 are:
- Oregon
- Washington
- UNC
- Duke
- NC State
- GT
- FSU
- Miami
Adding 2 more out west makes the most sense. Agree with you on UNC and Duke are realistically packaged, but could see them moving on without NC State. I think FSU and Miami are higher up on their "wish list", as from what I've seen/read is that the Big 10 REALLY wants a Florida school. While people can say FSU/Miami are fits for reasons, it's really because those are the next 2 Florida schools to realistically open up.
Agreed - if you drop NC State from the list - there might be room for another school who'll be shopping their wares pretty hard if / when the ACC implodes. That school - is located in South Bend.
AAU is not a hard and fast requirement, but over the last ~15 years of realignment, it's been an easy shorthand for The Big Ten's overall view of a particular University outside of football performance/brand/tv ratings.
At this time, it appears that any Big Ten decision on expansion is not only driven by money, but specifically by easily calculated TV Contract money (as opposed to the cable subscriptions in Md/DC and NJ/NYC).
That being said, I expect that the University Presidents will still weigh everything through the lens of Risk Management, and a 100-year decision. UCLA and USC look like Big Ten schools as far as academics, research, a national brand and a flagship school, large endowments, large alumni bases, broad sports programs, etc. You can expect that these schools would vote similarly to the traditional academic heavyweights in the Big Ten like Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Minnesota, as well as the athletic heavyweights, like Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.
For this reason, I think the Big Ten will be very cautious with Oregon and Clemson. While they have strong football success over the last ~25 years, they aren't the brand names with 100 years of football relevance. They aren't terrible schools, but they would be similar to Nebraska in that they really don't do much for the Big Ten as far as research, academics, opening a market for athletic recruits and student body recruits, reaching alums, large alumni bases, endowments, etc. Those schools need the Big Ten a hell of a lot more than the Big Ten needs them.
Notre Dame is Notre Dame and in a class of their own. The reported value that they would bring makes them a no-brainer to add, despite a lack of research.
UNC and UVa, like USC and UCLA, look like Big Ten schools and offer a lot even if their football teams aren't substantial. They would likely vote like Michigan within the Big Ten. Clemson and Oregon would likely vote like Nebraska and be much more hyper-focused on football than academics or broad athletics or health/safety.
Florida State and Miami offer a lot across the board, but I would rather see them added alongside a few academic powerhouses (assuming we do expand - I'd be happy staying at 16 or stopping at 18 with ND + 1)
Given that much of the conversation of late has been about FSU and Miami, I'm curious that you don't at least mention them, or why you're leaving them off? FSU (I happen to know) has been working to gain entry for over a decade, and--according to some faculty--is inching close to entry. AAU status is--despite the lofty associations that come with it--not always a measure of elite status. You readily acknowledge that ND doesn't have it, for example (and among the academic crowd I hang with ND is often derided, which is not to say that the school is bad bad that these views are HIGHLY inflected.) Your reasoning is both not offered or apparent.
I see so many curious assertions here based on people's prejudices/old-fashioned, sometimes outmoded assumptions. These haven't been the most rigorous conversations, that's for sure, but have tended to reveal just how provincial we all are. My hunch--only a hunch--is that we'll have several waves of realignment, with the big football powers breaking away, as sometimes already, not with great obvious rationales, and that later, when the SEC and B1G have absorbed most all the schools of note, a more rational recreation of regionally oriented divisions leading to playoffs, etc.
Personally, having California and Florida in the fold, and a coast-to-coast orientation, seems like a pretty obviously desirable goal to me. North, South, East, West and the SEC very much a Southern-fried confection. And a lot of this is probably, in fact, still a few years off, since it will be cheaper for teams in other conferences to exit as time goes on. Who knows, there may well have been some handshakes made already.
Personally, I would just like it to be good schools that get added. But no one here seemed to know that UF and FSU were top-20 public u's as of three days ago, several cuts above half of the B1G. So these things are fluid. But most fans won't care at all, and a lot of perceptions will change with realignment. Joining the B1G has helped Rutgers.
FSU (I happen to know) has been working to gain entry for over a decade, and--according to some faculty--is inching close to entry.
For some reason a lot of posters here cannot fathom this. Almost certainly because of this:
I see so many curious assertions here based on people's prejudices/old-fashioned, sometimes outmoded assumptions.
100% this.
GT, UNC, UVA
The B1G can have Oregon and Washington whenever they want them at this point. I'm sure Oregon and Washington would jump at the opportunity if the B1G sent an invite. But I do think there's more smoke to Miami and FSU joining the B1G. If they can get out of the ACC, I'd expect to see one or both of Miami/FSU plus Oregon and Washington. I believe the B1G wants to be in the south, and I don't blame them.
In my opinion, the next round of expansion is going to involve adding 4 or 8 teams, with the PAC-12 and the ACC getting raided. I don't know in how many years. I guess it'll depend on what is in the new TV deal on adding teams, but it doesn't appear the B1G knows whats in the current contract either. Whether any of this happens before or after the new deal ends remains to be seen. But the decks are not done being shuffled.