MUScoop

http://www.businessinsider.com/alabama-football-facility-pictures-2013-7?op=1

ro' tayd

Quote from: EnderWiggen on July 22, 2013, 03:42:01 PM
ro' tayd

Is it wrong for me to be totally disgusted by this college sports facility arms race? (And yes, I know The Al is a part of the problem)

No wonder we got JJJ away from Alabama.  Come to Alabama and see if you can be a a distraction from the stories about the football team's pre-bowl game practices!

Quote from: Groin_pull on July 22, 2013, 06:50:33 PM
Is it wrong for me to be totally disgusted by this college sports facility arms race? (And yes, I know The Al is a part of the problem)

Of course.  All built upon tax deductible donations too.

Quote from: Terror Skink on July 22, 2013, 07:13:06 PM

Of course.  All built upon tax deductible donations too.

It's not just about the money...it's also the message. What's important to these schools? I thought universities were supposed to be focused on education. Seems like their priorities are completely out of whack.

Quote from: LittleMurs on July 22, 2013, 07:02:57 PM
No wonder we got JJJ away from Alabama.  Come to Alabama and see if you can be a a distraction from the stories about the football team's pre-bowl game practices!

Indeed.  "Why Marquette?"  'its a basketball school, my other choices were football schools'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyFTkNSRgLo

It's so good to hear something like that.  "Hey kid come play at our school, you will be second fiddle and maybe we'll give you a tour of our great football facilities."

For football schools, every dollar spent towards basketball is a dollar not spent toward football.  I know that this may be pushing it to the limit here, but maybe this arms race forces ACC schools to choose--invest in your football facilities and gain some recruits so that your next TV contract is more lucrative OR stick to investing in basketball where the return on investment may not be as high (but not both).  The ACC chasing Bama and company in the football facilities arms race means that basketball schools like us have a little better shot at getting their recruits.

Quote from: Groin_pull on July 22, 2013, 07:17:46 PM
It's not just about the money...it's also the message. What's important to these schools? I thought universities were supposed to be focused on education. Seems like their priorities are completely out of whack.

For some of these communities and states, this is their way of being relevant nationally.   Look at the firestorm if Milwaukee was going to lose the Brewers or Bucks....OMG OMG OMG.  "We will be a second class city...we will no longer be major league".   Now put yourself in South Carolina, Boise, Eugene, Alabama, Mississippi, etc, and this is their ticket to the big time.  Or so the thinking goes.

Quote from: Groin_pull on July 22, 2013, 07:17:46 PM
It's not just about the money...it's also the message. What's important to these schools? I thought universities were supposed to be focused on education. Seems like their priorities are completely out of whack.

Well, Marquette is part of the problem then.  And frankly you (and I) am too?  Do you watch any division three sports...no scholarships there.

That being said, you might be making an assumption that it's a zero sum game.  Just because they are putting these resources toward football doesn't mean that resources aren't be spent academically.

And then there's this:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22846958/bowlsby-attacks-ncaa-suggest-division-4-football-is-possible

Quote from: Terror Skink on July 22, 2013, 07:24:19 PM
And then there's this:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/22846958/bowlsby-attacks-ncaa-suggest-division-4-football-is-possible

Is there a reason a relegation/promotion system isn't used anywhere in the US?

Quote from: Groin_pull on July 22, 2013, 07:17:46 PM
It's not just about the money...it's also the message. What's important to these schools? I thought universities were supposed to be focused on education. Seems like their priorities are completely out of whack.

i think it can bring a lot of pride and sense of community to a city/state, and i don't have so much of a problem with it at the college level as long as it isn't at the expense of academics.  i wish the coaches, ncaa, bcs, tv, etc. were more ethical...that's the part that bothers me. 

a few years ago a high school in texas built a stadium that cost over $60 million...in the end the superintendent admitted that they needed more classrooms, but couldn't get that referendum passed, so they went to referendum for the football stadium and then put classrooms inside of it.  that's sick...

Quote from: jesmu84 on July 22, 2013, 07:30:27 PM
Is there a reason a relegation/promotion system isn't used anywhere in the US?

Why does every soccer fan think relegation is some glorious mechanism of competition?

No, I really want to root for a sport where the same 2-4 teams win every year. American sports are the paradigm of competition. It's not perfect, but at least every team really does have a chance to dream.

Quote from: Aughnanure on July 22, 2013, 07:54:45 PM
Why does every soccer fan think relegation is some glorious mechanism of competition?

No, I really want to root for a sport where the same 2-4 teams win every year. American sports are the paradigm of competition. It's not perfect, but at least every team really does have a chance to dream.

Agreed.  Promotion/relegation made sense when you had a bunch of semi-pro type clubs with little resource differentiation..but it makes little sense in current professional sports. 

I mean let's say you are a fan of some mid-level EPL team.  There is only one chance you have to win a league title....pray that some oil shiek buys your club, throws a bunch of money a the team, and doesn't leave it bankrupt in the process.

In American sports, every team has at least a roadmap on how to win a title.

Quote from: Terror Skink on July 22, 2013, 07:23:10 PM

Well, Marquette is part of the problem then.  And frankly you (and I) am too?  Do you watch any division three sports...no scholarships there.

That being said, you might be making an assumption that it's a zero sum game.  Just because they are putting these resources toward football doesn't mean that resources aren't be spent academically.

Although I totally agree with you, I guess its just actually see the jaw-dropping absurdity of it all. Everything including a safe with built in chargers for their phones in thought of. If we could put that type of attention to detail in other things, think what your schools and universities could do. There was no cutting corners with this, but it's amazing to realize how many corners there actually are.

But we love sports. We live our lives through it. We have good days and bad days based on how the game turned out. Our most vivid memories are made by it. We basically asked for this.

Two things first I just treat he'd Jimmy and Lazar's tour of the Al and I don't think that's its as extravagant and posh as you guys are making it out to be (outside of the lockerroom lounge) secondly I find it hysterical that these guys are supposed to be playing a rough tough guy sport and come back to this.  I'd say that four years living like that is compensation enough for playing in college, no need for money.  I could understand it if they were playing in metal lockerrooms and in the old gym still. 

Quote from: Aughnanure on July 22, 2013, 08:06:34 PM
Although I totally agree with you, I guess its just actually see the jaw-dropping absurdity of it all. Everything including a safe with built in chargers for their phones in thought of. If we could put that type of attention to detail in other things, think what your schools and universities could do. There was no cutting corners with this, but it's amazing to realize how many corners there actually are.

But we love sports. We live our lives through it. We have good days and bad days based on how the game turned out. Our most vivid memories are made by it. We basically asked for this.

Have you seen the new law school building? A similar level of attention to detail went into that facility.

Quote from: jesmu84 on July 22, 2013, 07:30:27 PM
Is there a reason a relegation/promotion system isn't used anywhere in the US?

Get back to me when somebody other than Man United/City, Chelsea, Liverpool, or Arsenal wins the Premier League (and this is coming from a lifelong Man U fan). The revenue sharing in European leagues is also atrocious between the top leagues and others.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on July 22, 2013, 08:19:11 PM
Two things first I just treat he'd Jimmy and Lazar's tour of the Al and I don't think that's its as extravagant and posh as you guys are making it out to be (outside of the lockerroom lounge) secondly I find it hysterical that these guys are supposed to be playing a rough tough guy sport and come back to this.  I'd say that four years living like that is compensation enough for playing in college, no need for money.  I could understand it if they were playing in metal lockerrooms and in the old gym still. 

WTF?

Quote from: Aughnanure on July 22, 2013, 07:54:45 PM
Why does every soccer fan think relegation is some glorious mechanism of competition?

No, I really want to root for a sport where the same 2-4 teams win every year. American sports are the paradigm of competition. It's not perfect, but at least every team really does have a chance to dream.

Except the Cubs. Well, they can dream but still aren't going to win.

Quote from: Terror Skink on July 22, 2013, 08:00:13 PM

Agreed.  Promotion/relegation made sense when you had a bunch of semi-pro type clubs with little resource differentiation..but it makes little sense in current professional sports. 

I mean let's say you are a fan of some mid-level EPL team.  There is only one chance you have to win a league title....pray that some oil shiek buys your club, throws a bunch of money a the team, and doesn't leave it bankrupt in the process.

In American sports, every team has at least a roadmap on how to win a title.

I agree that the EPL and other European leagues have poor economic models, but I don't think it has anything to do with the promotion/relegation model.  There are advantages, forcing in the middle to bottom tiers to still fight for something as the season wears on.

I know it doesn't make economic sense but for the fan the promotion/relegation has it's merits.  There are quite a few American sports teams that are unwatchable at the end of the season because they are mailing it in.  Not as much in the EPL type model.  Some of those teams are the best to watch near the end of the season.

Quote from: MarquetteDano on July 22, 2013, 11:39:26 PM
I agree that the EPL and other European leagues have poor economic models, but I don't think it has anything to do with the promotion/relegation model.  There are advantages, forcing in the middle to bottom tiers to still fight for something as the season wears on.

I know it doesn't make economic sense but for the fan the promotion/relegation has it's merits.  There are quite a few American sports teams that are unwatchable at the end of the season because they are mailing it in.  Not as much in the EPL type model.  Some of those teams are the best to watch near the end of the season.

Exactly right. The promotion/relegation system is not the problem, it's the revenue sharing that gives unequal proportions to teams that are constantly in the top flight and Champions League. Rewarding success is one thing, but hoarding it is something else.

When teams tank for Wiggins this year, I'm sure plenty will see merit with promotion/relegation in at least one American sport.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 22, 2013, 07:20:12 PM
For some of these communities and states, this is their way of being relevant nationally.   Look at the firestorm if Milwaukee was going to lose the Brewers or Bucks....OMG OMG OMG.  "We will be a second class city...we will no longer be major league".   Now put yourself in South Carolina, Boise, Eugene, Alabama, Mississippi, etc, and this is their ticket to the big time.  Or so the thinking goes.

I never realized this until I moved to a state without a professional sports team. The state's football team is everything. Even though they are just terrible.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 22, 2013, 11:55:48 PM
When teams tank for Wiggins this year, I'm sure plenty will see merit with promotion/relegation in at least one American sport.

I'm skeptical anyone is going to tank for Wiggins. He's not a generational talent, i.e. LeBron, Ewing, Duncan, etc.

Also, for all the criticism directed toward it, the lottery has all but eliminated the benefits of tanking a season. Since 1990, the league's worst team has ended up with the #1 overall pick just three times (Orlando, 2004; Cleveland, 2003; New Jersey, 1990). The second-worst team has earned it just three times. So even if you wanted to tank for Wiggins - and again, nobody will - you're far from guaranteed a shot at drafting him.

Regardless, no professional sports team owner in this country will ever go for relegation (for good reason), so it's a moot discussion.

Quote from: striker14 on July 22, 2013, 08:53:47 PM
Have you seen the new law school building? A similar level of attention to detail went into that facility.

I can't tell which is more disgusting.... spending $9M on Alabama's football facility or spending any amount of money to educate (future) lawyers.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 22, 2013, 07:20:12 PM
For some of these communities and states, this is their way of being relevant nationally.   Look at the firestorm if Milwaukee was going to lose the Brewers or Bucks....OMG OMG OMG.  "We will be a second class city...we will no longer be major league".   Now put yourself in South Carolina, Boise, Eugene, Alabama, Mississippi, etc, and this is their ticket to the big time.  Or so the thinking goes.

When the Sonics left did Seattle become a second class city? Did Oklahoma City become a first class one? Perceptions are often light years away from reality.

Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on July 22, 2013, 11:36:13 PM
Except the Cubs. Well, they can dream but still aren't going to win.

The Cubs are installing a jumbotron and more signage! Obviously a World Series is not far behind!

Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 23, 2013, 09:52:37 AM
When the Sonics left did Seattle become a second class city? Did Oklahoma City become a first class one? Perceptions are often light years away from reality.

I agree entirely Lenny.  That's why I chuckle when people think a team leaving somehow leaves their city on the dustbin of history...and thus they are willing to cave and give up whatever they need to in funds, tax breaks, etc, etc to keep the team around.  It's not going to change, that perception lives and a lot of people buy into it.   Don't get me wrong, I would be hurt as a fan if my favorite team left the area, but plenty of great cities that don't have major league teams.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 23, 2013, 09:58:33 AM
I agree entirely Lenny.  That's why I chuckle when people think a team leaving somehow leaves their city on the dustbin of history...and thus they are willing to cave and give up whatever they need to in funds, tax breaks, etc, etc to keep the team around.  It's not going to change, that perception lives and a lot of people buy into it.   Don't get me wrong, I would be hurt as a fan if my favorite team left the area, but plenty of great cities that don't have major league teams.

Sheboygan Redskins, Rochester Royals, Waterloo Hawks, Anderson Packers, Tri Cities Blachhawks, Fort Wayne Pistons, Syracuse Nationals, Buffalo Braves.  Sure a bunch of cities have lost their NBA teams and have been ok but a great deal also lost their teams and are an after thought now.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 23, 2013, 09:58:33 AM
I agree entirely Lenny.  That's why I chuckle when people think a team leaving somehow leaves their city on the dustbin of history...and thus they are willing to cave and give up whatever they need to in funds, tax breaks, etc, etc to keep the team around.  It's not going to change, that perception lives and a lot of people buy into it.   Don't get me wrong, I would be hurt as a fan if my favorite team left the area, but plenty of great cities that don't have major league teams.

+1. I confess to hypocrisy here. Every working brain cell screams "leave" and "good riddance" when I hear of a team trying to blackmail a city, but when the White Sox were threatening to leave Chicago I would have supported almost any measure that ensured their remaining.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on July 23, 2013, 10:22:25 AM
Sheboygan Redskins, Rochester Royals, Waterloo Hawks, Anderson Packers, Tri Cities Blachhawks, Fort Wayne Pistons, Syracuse Nationals, Buffalo Braves.  Sure a bunch of cities have lost their NBA teams and have been ok but a great deal also lost their teams and are an after thought now.

Weren't they always an after thought? When I think world class cities none of them come or ever came to mind.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 23, 2013, 10:26:16 AM
Weren't they always an after thought? When I think world class cities none of them come or ever came to mind.

Wait we were talking world class cities? My bad

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on July 23, 2013, 10:22:25 AM
Sheboygan Redskins, Rochester Royals, Waterloo Hawks, Anderson Packers, Tri Cities Blachhawks, Fort Wayne Pistons, Syracuse Nationals, Buffalo Braves.  Sure a bunch of cities have lost their NBA teams and have been ok but a great deal also lost their teams and are an after thought now.

Chicken or the egg.

Did the teams leave those cities because the cities and the surrounding population couldn't support them, or did the cities suffer as a result of the teams leaving?  I'm putting my money on the former, not the latter.

Los Angeles Rams.  Los Angeles Raiders.  Chicago Cardinals.  Kansas City Kings.  Philadelphia Warriors.  Philadelphia A's. Kansas City Athletics.  Seattle Pilots.  San Diego Clippers.  Cleveland Rams.  Washington Senators.  Minnesota North Stars.  Vancouver Grizzlies.

Teams come and go.  Sometimes the cities get another team to replace them, sometimes they don't.  They're nice to have, can be an epicenter for civic pride, excitement, etc.  They can also be a resource drain and a stain as well.  There's usually good with the bad and vice versa, sports teams no exception.  I'm sure there are people out there that will say the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn killed that burrough, when in fact there were considerable problems for years leading up to their departure...the Dodgers just becomes the rallying cry and the easy to target "event". 

Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 23, 2013, 10:22:54 AM
+1. I confess to hypocrisy here. Every working brain cell screams "leave" and "good riddance" when I hear of a team trying to blackmail a city, but when the White Sox were threatening to leave Chicago I would have supported almost any measure that ensured their remaining.

We all do....we all tend to overvalue this stuff.  Sports Human Nature.

If this happens it looks like the New Big East happened not a moment too soon.

Are there any schools left in BCS conferences WITHOUT football? If so I'd guess they are not going to like a further dividing point like this.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 23, 2013, 01:39:16 PM
We all do....we all tend to overvalue this stuff.  Sports Human Nature.

That's what teams count on to fill those high-priced seats and buy that high-priced team merchandise.

Quote from: Groin_pull on July 23, 2013, 02:06:23 PM
That's what teams count on to fill those high-priced seats and buy that high-priced team merchandise.

Except if people are willing to pay for it - heck, eager to pay for it - then it's not really overvalued.
I know it's de rigueur to roll out cliches about how we place too much importance on sports, athletes are paid too much, our priorities are out of line, etc. - and hey, maybe that's all true - but the market determines the value. If people in Wisconsin are willing to get on a waiting list 81,000 names long to pay $90 per ticket for end zone seats, then that's the value of those seats.

So Alabama spent $9 million to upgrade its facilities? Pfft. The program turned a $45 million profit last year.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 23, 2013, 02:45:48 PM
Except if people are willing to pay for it - heck, eager to pay for it - then it's not really overvalued.
I know it's de rigueur to roll out cliches about how we place too much importance on sports, athletes are paid too much, our priorities are out of line, etc. - and hey, maybe that's all true - but the market determines the value. If people in Wisconsin are willing to get on a waiting list 81,000 names long to pay $90 per ticket for end zone seats, then that's the value of those seats.

So Alabama spent $9 million to upgrade its facilities? Pfft. The program turned a $45 million profit last year.

The other $36MM went toward "recruiting."

Quote from: Aughnanure on July 22, 2013, 07:54:45 PM
No, I really want to root for a sport where the same 2-4 teams win every year. American sports are the paradigm of competition. It's not perfect, but at least every team really does have a chance to dream.

Somewhat ironic that you would say this on a board primarily devoted to basketball, as all but two NBA titles since 1980 have been won by the same 7 teams.

NBA Champions since 1980
1980: Lakers
1981: Celtics
1982: Lakers
1983: 76ers
1984: Celtics
1985: Lakers
1986: Celtics
1987: Lakers
1988: Lakers
1989: Pistons
1990: Pistons
1991: Bulls
1992: Bulls
1993: Bulls
1994: Rockets
1995: Rockets
1996: Bulls
1997: Bulls
1998: Bulls
1999: Spurs
2000: Lakers
2001: Lakers
2002: Lakers
2003: Spurs
2004: Pistons
2005: Spurs
2006: Heat
2007: Spurs
2008: Celtics
2009: Lakers
2010: Lakers
2011: Mavericks
2012: Heat
2013: Heat

Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on July 23, 2013, 08:55:35 PM
Somewhat ironic that you would say this on a board primarily devoted to basketball, as all but two NBA titles since 1980 have been won by the same 7 teams.

NBA Champions since 1980
1980: Lakers
1981: Celtics
1982: Lakers
1983: 76ers
1984: Celtics
1985: Lakers
1986: Celtics
1987: Lakers
1988: Lakers
1989: Pistons
1990: Pistons
1991: Bulls
1992: Bulls
1993: Bulls
1994: Rockets
1995: Rockets
1996: Bulls
1997: Bulls
1998: Bulls
1999: Spurs
2000: Lakers
2001: Lakers
2002: Lakers
2003: Spurs
2004: Pistons
2005: Spurs
2006: Heat
2007: Spurs
2008: Celtics
2009: Lakers
2010: Lakers
2011: Mavericks
2012: Heat
2013: Heat

If you were to do it by finals appearances it's a bit better distributed overall but it does show how far ahead those handful of teams are: 

16x Lakers

7x Celtics

6x Bulls

5x Pistons

5x Spurs

4x 76ers

4x Rockets

4x Heat

2x Trail Blazers

2x Knicks

2x Jazz

2x Nets

2x Mavericks

2x Magic

1x Sonics

1x Pacers

1x Cavaliers

1x Suns

1x Thunder

Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on July 23, 2013, 08:55:35 PM
Somewhat ironic that you would say this on a board primarily devoted to basketball, as all but two NBA titles since 1980 have been won by the same 7 teams.

NBA Champions since 1980
1980: Lakers
1981: Celtics
1982: Lakers
1983: 76ers
1984: Celtics
1985: Lakers
1986: Celtics
1987: Lakers
1988: Lakers
1989: Pistons
1990: Pistons
1991: Bulls
1992: Bulls
1993: Bulls
1994: Rockets
1995: Rockets
1996: Bulls
1997: Bulls
1998: Bulls
1999: Spurs
2000: Lakers
2001: Lakers
2002: Lakers
2003: Spurs
2004: Pistons
2005: Spurs
2006: Heat
2007: Spurs
2008: Celtics
2009: Lakers
2010: Lakers
2011: Mavericks
2012: Heat
2013: Heat

One of many reasons the NBA blows!   ;D

We'll see if the new CBA and the luxury tax start to make it a bit more competitive for other teams.

With a trillion dollars in student debt, I believe the student athletes are compensated fairly. I have no problem with capital expenditures such as new sports facilities, law schools, engineering facilities etc. My problem, especially with the tax funded state schools is the high cost of pensions for academics. The president of tOSU left her position and is now a congress woman. She collect a 250,000 dollar annual pension for life while at the same time collecting a 175,000 salary as a congress woman. I am sure she is just the tip of the iceberg. Here in New Jersey we have 12 state funded colleges and Universities. The average salary for the Presidents of those Universities is 230,000. They also get an annual 50,000 dollars for travel and 80,000 for living expenses. No wonder tuitions are so high and student have to go into debt to get an education.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 24, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Here in New Jersey we have 12 state funded colleges and Universities.

Wisconsin has, if I remember correctly, 13 4-year schools and 13 2-year schools, not to mention the tech schools which are also supported by tax dollars.

I can't speak to the tech schools, but it seems like Wisconsin must have the highest number of state-run higher ed schools per capita in the country. How many 4-year schools does Illinois have? 6?

Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on July 23, 2013, 08:55:35 PM
Somewhat ironic that you would say this on a board primarily devoted to basketball, as all but two NBA titles since 1980 have been won by the same 7 teams.

NBA Champions since 1980
1980: Lakers
1981: Celtics
1982: Lakers
1983: 76ers
1984: Celtics
1985: Lakers
1986: Celtics
1987: Lakers
1988: Lakers
1989: Pistons
1990: Pistons
1991: Bulls
1992: Bulls
1993: Bulls
1994: Rockets
1995: Rockets
1996: Bulls
1997: Bulls
1998: Bulls
1999: Spurs
2000: Lakers
2001: Lakers
2002: Lakers
2003: Spurs
2004: Pistons
2005: Spurs
2006: Heat
2007: Spurs
2008: Celtics
2009: Lakers
2010: Lakers
2011: Mavericks
2012: Heat
2013: Heat

Um, that would be 9 different team, Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Heat, Mavericks and if you add in the other teams mentioned that made it to the finals it means 18 teams have played for the title since then (combining Seattle and OKC since they are the same team). Which is nearly 2/3rds of the league since 1980 having a shot at the title.

Quote from: warrior07 on July 24, 2013, 08:22:40 AM
Wisconsin has, if I remember correctly, 13 4-year schools and 13 2-year schools, not to mention the tech schools which are also supported by tax dollars.

I can't speak to the tech schools, but it seems like Wisconsin must have the highest number of state-run higher ed schools per capita in the country. How many 4-year schools does Illinois have? 6?

Illinois has 12 state universities.
Wisconsin has 13 state universities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_universities_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_universities_in_the_United_States)

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 24, 2013, 08:31:44 AM
Illinois has 12 state universities.
Wisconsin has 13 state universities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_universities_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_universities_in_the_United_States)

Four year schools. Your link suggests 9 for Illinois, with two schools having several campuses.

Let's cut down Wisconsin's number to be proportional to Illinois.

If Illinois has about 13M in population, divided by 9 schools, that's 1.44M per school. Wisconsin's population is about 5.7M. At that rate, Wisconsin needs about 4 4-year state schools.

Quote from: warrior07 on July 24, 2013, 09:00:25 AM
Four year schools. Your link suggests 9 for Illinois, with two schools having several campuses.

Let's cut down Wisconsin's number to be proportional to Illinois.

If Illinois has about 13M in population, divided by 9 schools, that's 1.44M per school. Wisconsin's population is about 5.7M. At that rate, Wisconsin needs about 4 4-year state schools.

Just curious, how do you get to 9? I realize Governors State is not yet a 4-year school, but that still leaves 11. 

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 24, 2013, 09:10:17 AM
Just curious, how do you get to 9? I realize Governors State is not yet a 4-year school, but that still leaves 11. 

I'm counting the university systems as one university, not the branches. It seems to me that counting the branches as independent universities would be like counting the satellite offices of places like the MU MBA program as a separate university.

Quote from: warrior07 on July 24, 2013, 09:17:03 AM
I'm counting the university systems as one university, not the branches. It seems to me that counting the branches as independent universities would be like counting the satellite offices of places like the MU MBA program as a separate university.

So then doesn't Wisconsin just have 1?

Why would it? They're independent universities with individual chancellors, etc.

Quote from: warrior07 on July 24, 2013, 09:29:03 AM
Why would it? They're independent universities with individual chancellors, etc.

The same holds true for the Illinois universities. They have different chancellors but the same president.

Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on July 23, 2013, 08:55:35 PM
Somewhat ironic that you would say this on a board primarily devoted to basketball, as all but two NBA titles since 1980 have been won by the same 7 teams.

NBA Champions since 1980
1980: Lakers
1981: Celtics
1982: Lakers
1983: 76ers
1984: Celtics
1985: Lakers
1986: Celtics
1987: Lakers
1988: Lakers
1989: Pistons
1990: Pistons
1991: Bulls
1992: Bulls
1993: Bulls
1994: Rockets
1995: Rockets
1996: Bulls
1997: Bulls
1998: Bulls
1999: Spurs
2000: Lakers
2001: Lakers
2002: Lakers
2003: Spurs
2004: Pistons
2005: Spurs
2006: Heat
2007: Spurs
2008: Celtics
2009: Lakers
2010: Lakers
2011: Mavericks
2012: Heat
2013: Heat

In a sport where there are only 5 people on the court for a team, it really isn't all that surprising. It's simply about who has the best 1 or 2 players in the world. The Pistons in 04 are really the only exception to that rule. And besides the Lakers' 10 in the time frame, nothing is too ridiculous - but that;ll happen when you have Kareem, Magic, Kobe, and Shaq playing for you in their primes.

Also 9 is more than every major soccer league has, and about every league has at least one team with more championships than the most winning NBA team (Lakers) in the same period. Even the number 2 team usually has more than the Bulls. And this is a sport with 11 people on the field at one time and little scoring! But nice try.

Here's the No. of Championships since 1980 in the major leagues. And if you actually look at the timeline, you'll see it's only getting worse. The only reason these are not more lopsided is because we are stretching it back to the 1980s.

Premier League
Man U - 13 (all after 1992)
Arsenal - 5
Liverpool - 6
Chelsea - 3
Total: 27 championships of last 34

Italian Serie A
Juventus - 11
Milan - 8
Internazionale - 7
Total: 26 championships of last 34

Spanish La Liga
Real Madrid - 12
Barcelona -13
Total: 25 championships of last 34

German Bundesliga
Bayern Munich - 18
Borussia Dortmund - 5
Total: 23 championships of last 34

Quote from: warrior07 on July 24, 2013, 09:00:25 AM
Four year schools. Your link suggests 9 for Illinois, with two schools having several campuses.

Let's cut down Wisconsin's number to be proportional to Illinois.

If Illinois has about 13M in population, divided by 9 schools, that's 1.44M per school. Wisconsin's population is about 5.7M. At that rate, Wisconsin needs about 4 4-year state schools.

No.

Wisconsin's 4 year public universities are a model for the nation. Why try to be like Illinois? Don't fix what isn't broken.

Being an MU fan, as much as I like to rag on UW the last state we should be trying to emulate is Illinois.

I'd agree with a merger of UW-Stout and UW-Eau Claire but that's it.

Am I the only one who doesn't have a problem with these elaborate facilities?

If Marquette Basketball was still in the old gym, everyone here would be complaining we need an elaborate facility to compete.

If you have the money to improve you program spend it. 

Quote from: TallTitan34 on July 24, 2013, 10:07:41 AM
Am I the only one who doesn't have a problem with these elaborate facilities?

If Marquette Basketball was still in the old gym, everyone here would be complaining we need an elaborate facility to compete.

If you have the money to improve you program spend it. 

Agreed. Talk to Georgetown fans who've been trying to build the IAC for more than a decade now.

Quote from: Bleuteaux on July 24, 2013, 09:57:56 AM
No.

Wisconsin's 4 year public universities are a model for the nation. Why try to be like Illinois? Don't fix what isn't broken.

Being an MU fan, as much as I like to rag on UW the last state we should be trying to emulate is Illinois.

I'd agree with a merger of UW-Stout and UW-Eau Claire but that's it.

What makes it a model for the nation?

Quote from: TallTitan34 on July 24, 2013, 10:07:41 AM
Am I the only one who doesn't have a problem with these elaborate facilities?

If Marquette Basketball was still in the old gym, everyone here would be complaining we need an elaborate facility to compete.

If you have the money to improve you program spend it. 

I don't have a problem with it.  I just think that with facilities like this they are compensated enough without being paid to play.

Quote from: MUMonster03 on July 24, 2013, 08:28:32 AM
Um, that would be 9 different team, Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Heat, Mavericks and if you add in the other teams mentioned that made it to the finals it means 18 teams have played for the title since then (combining Seattle and OKC since they are the same team). Which is nearly 2/3rds of the league since 1980 having a shot at the title.

But 51 of all the 66 finals appearances were by the same 8 teams.  When you look at it like that it's not really as fair as you're implying. 

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on July 24, 2013, 11:33:20 AM
But 51 of all the 66 finals appearances were by the same 8 teams.  When you look at it like that it's not really as fair as you're implying. 

Actually it is getting more fair, which is what the NBA has been trying to do. Lets take out the 80's which saw only the Celtics, Lakers, Rockets, 76ers, and Pistons get shots at championships the percentages go up.

The 90's you had 11 different teams play for the championship and the 2000's you had 11 different teams as well. And since 2010 you have had 6 different teams play for it already. The NBA has always been the type of league where you are good for multiple years and then have a down swing. If I'm counting your 8 teams correctly (Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Heat, Pistons) they have all gown down and back up at least once, if not twice since the 80's.

The NBA is probably the worst example of the 4 big sports leagues in the US of having parity, teams have just missed their window due to teams rebuilding better than others or just being good at the wrong time.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 23, 2013, 09:57:21 AM
The Cubs are installing a jumbotron and more signage! Obviously a World Series is not far behind!

Jaguars just ordered a new scoreboard as well, SUPERBOWL BOUND!.  And everyone uses that as the go to defense when I say that Khan is moving the team to London in 5 years. 

The Packers just added 2 new scoreboards, should we get ready for a back-to-back Lombardi trophies being added to the shrine that is the Packers HOF?  ;)

Quote from: warrior07 on July 24, 2013, 10:40:26 AM
What makes it a model for the nation?

Cost, success rates, graduation rates, workforce development, amongst others.

I'm a FIB and I can recognize how good the UW system is.

Quote from: PTM on July 24, 2013, 06:53:03 PM
Cost, success rates, graduation rates, workforce development, amongst others.

I'm a FIB and I can recognize how good the UW system is.

Agree to an extent.  The UW system has done a poor job of establishing tier 1 research universities, with only Madison qualifying.  Illinois has two.  California has 8.  Even Alabama has 2 (and that doesn't include the University of Alabama, which is tier 2).

Quote from: forgetful on July 24, 2013, 08:56:01 PM
Agree to an extent.  The UW system has done a poor job of establishing tier 1 research universities, with only Madison qualifying.  Illinois has two.  California has 8.  Even Alabama has 2 (and that doesn't include the University of Alabama, which is tier 2).

That is a little misleading.  In many states, Alabama for instance, you have the Engineering school (Auburn) separate from the other Research 1 school (Alabama.)  Same with South Carolina, Indiana, etc.  Wisconsin has that centered into one campus...which also includes the medical school and law school.  There aren't many states of Wisconsin's size that concentrate all of that into one campus.  Minnesota is another example.

Not to mention that the UW System isn't really all that interested in establishing another school that is going to compete with Madison.  Milwaukee has tried to make strides in that area, but the System isn't devoting a great deal of resources to that campus for that purpose.  But right now UWM is the only other school that even offers PhDs.

That being said, I think the UW System has too many smaller campuses and I have heard a few are struggling.  If you designed it from the bottom up, you probably would have campuses more in the 15-20,000 student range and not in the 8-12,000 student range.

Quote from: forgetful on July 24, 2013, 08:56:01 PM
Agree to an extent.  The UW system has done a poor job of establishing tier 1 research universities, with only Madison qualifying.  Illinois has two.  California has 8.  Even Alabama has 2 (and that doesn't include the University of Alabama, which is tier 2).

What do you mean by tiers?  Carnegie classification?

I don't think that the stated (or even unstated) goal of the UW-system is to create research institutions.  UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee are the only schools in the system that offer (non Ded) doctorate degrees so they are the only two that qualify as research status.  Madison is RU/VH (tier 1) and UW-Milwaukee is RU/H (tier 2).  The other UW@ schools aren't research schools because they're not designed to be.  

By two schools in IL, I'm assuming that you mean Urbana-Champane and UIC.  UIC has such high research status because of their medical school (and dentistry school), where, as a comparison, UW-Milwaukee does not have such schools, through no fault of their own.

I like the UW-system.  Madison is a research behemoth.  If WI channeled away resources from Madison to the other UW schools, then Madison would lose its notoriety.  If that happened, WI would have two somewhat-better-than-average research schools (eg, Oregon), rather than one huge research giant.

EDIT:  Sultan basically beat me to the punch

Quote from: ElDonBDon on July 24, 2013, 09:23:43 PM
What do you mean by tiers?  Carnegie classification?

I don't think that the stated (or even unstated) goal of the UW-system is to create research institutions.  UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee are the only schools in the system that offer (non Ded) doctorate degrees so they are the only two that qualify as research status.  Madison is RU/VH (tier 1) and UW-Milwaukee is RU/H (tier 2).  The other UW@ schools aren't research schools because they're not designed to be. 

By two schools in IL, I'm assuming that you mean Urbana-Champane and UIC.  UIC has such high research status because of their medical school (and dentistry school), where, as a comparison, UW-Milwaukee does not have such schools, through no fault of their own.

I like the UW-system.  Madison is a research behemoth.  If WI channeled away resources from Madison to the other UW schools, then Madison would lose its notoriety.  If that happened, WI would have two somewhat-better-than-average research schools (eg, Oregon), rather than one huge research giant.

EDIT:  Sultan basically beat me to the punch

Yeah, but you said it better than I did.

Quote from: Aughnanure on July 24, 2013, 09:57:23 AM
In a sport where there are only 5 people on the court for a team, it really isn't all that surprising. It's simply about who has the best 1 or 2 players in the world. The Pistons in 04 are really the only exception to that rule. And besides the Lakers' 10 in the time frame, nothing is too ridiculous - but that;ll happen when you have Kareem, Magic, Kobe, and Shaq playing for you in their primes.

Also 9 is more than every major soccer league has, and about every league has at least one team with more championships than the most winning NBA team (Lakers) in the same period. Even the number 2 team usually has more than the Bulls. And this is a sport with 11 people on the field at one time and little scoring! But nice try.

Here's the No. of Championships since 1980 in the major leagues. And if you actually look at the timeline, you'll see it's only getting worse. The only reason these are not more lopsided is because we are stretching it back to the 1980s.

Premier League
Man U - 13 (all after 1992)
Arsenal - 5
Liverpool - 6
Chelsea - 3
Total: 27 championships of last 34

Italian Serie A
Juventus - 11
Milan - 8
Internazionale - 7
Total: 26 championships of last 34

Spanish La Liga
Real Madrid - 12
Barcelona -13
Total: 25 championships of last 34

German Bundesliga
Bayern Munich - 18
Borussia Dortmund - 5
Total: 23 championships of last 34

Relax, friend. I know a thing or two about the beautiful game. I know how it works.

All I'm saying is it's not that different here in America. It's not necessarily the grand crapshoot (or "paradigm of competition") you made it out to be just because we don't have pro/rel stateside.

Quote from: ElDonBDon on July 24, 2013, 09:23:43 PM
What do you mean by tiers?  Carnegie classification?

I don't think that the stated (or even unstated) goal of the UW-system is to create research institutions.  UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee are the only schools in the system that offer (non Ded) doctorate degrees so they are the only two that qualify as research status.  Madison is RU/VH (tier 1) and UW-Milwaukee is RU/H (tier 2).  The other UW@ schools aren't research schools because they're not designed to be.  

By two schools in IL, I'm assuming that you mean Urbana-Champane and UIC.  UIC has such high research status because of their medical school (and dentistry school), where, as a comparison, UW-Milwaukee does not have such schools, through no fault of their own.

I like the UW-system.  Madison is a research behemoth.  If WI channeled away resources from Madison to the other UW schools, then Madison would lose its notoriety.  If that happened, WI would have two somewhat-better-than-average research schools (eg, Oregon), rather than one huge research giant.

EDIT:  Sultan basically beat me to the punch

I would argue that your viewpoint is a bit short-sighted.  You look at the Universities as competing against one another, which is incorrect for multiple reasons.

1)  Research is national, people are not going to UW because it is in Wisconsin, they are going because of their reputation.  So establishing another research powerhouse would be well worth it.

2)  You would not be devoting resources away from UW by establishing another research center.  Research at UW nets a hefty profit. By investing in another tier 1 University they would bring more dollars into the system and turn an even larger profit.  Not to mention the economic benefits of the research as they can spin off companies from the research.  This would bring in new jobs in fast moving high impact fields, this would be particularly beneficial in Milwaukee.

3)  By establishing another research University they would greatly improve the undergraduate education in the sciences.  Getting hands on research at an early stage of ones career is essential for their downstream success.  This requires that their the undergraduate universities are involved in nationally funded research.  With the research centralized in Madison (and to a lesser extent UW-Milwaukee) you detract from the education of undergraduates in the rest of the state.

Note, to Sultan...Auburn is also not tier 1.  And by Tier 1 I mean by the carnegie system, used to be called R1, now RU/VH, I prefer tier 1.

Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on July 24, 2013, 09:40:32 PM
Relax, friend. I know a thing or two about the beautiful game. I know how it works.

All I'm saying is it's not that different here in America. It's not necessarily the grand crapshoot (or "paradigm of competition") you made it out to be just because we don't have pro/rel stateside.

But you only picked out one example...the NBA.

That being said, European soccer has become more about the Champions League than the domestic league.  Everyone knows Bayern will win Germany...Juventus will win Italy...Barca or Real in Spain...and likely Man U again in England (although that could be very interesting.)  

The real race is which one of these teams (or others like PSG) wins the Champions League.

Quote from: forgetful on July 24, 2013, 09:45:39 PM
I would argue that your viewpoint is a bit short-sighted.  You look at the Universities as competing against one another, which is incorrect for multiple reasons.

1)  Research is national, people are not going to UW because it is in Wisconsin, they are going because of their reputation.  So establishing another research powerhouse would be well worth it.

2)  You would not be devoting resources away from UW by establishing another research center.  Research at UW nets a hefty profit. By investing in another tier 1 University they would bring more dollars into the system and turn an even larger profit.  Not to mention the economic benefits of the research as they can spin off companies from the research.  This would bring in new jobs in fast moving high impact fields, this would be particularly beneficial in Milwaukee.

3)  By establishing another research University they would greatly improve the undergraduate education in the sciences.  Getting hands on research at an early stage of ones career is essential for their downstream success.  This requires that their the undergraduate universities are involved in nationally funded research.  With the research centralized in Madison (and to a lesser extent UW-Milwaukee) you detract from the education of undergraduates in the rest of the state.

Note, to Sultan...Auburn is also not tier 1.  And by Tier 1 I mean by the carnegie system, used to be called R1, now RU/VH, I prefer tier 1.

Thank you for the note.

Even if I agreed completely with your points however, and I really don't know if I do, what you are suggesting is going to require start up capital that UWM doesn't have access to at this point.  Blame the System..the state government...the legislature...whatever.  It is going to take a lot of money to change UWM from a former teachers college and commuter school into hefty research institution.  You have to invest in facilities, faculty, etc. 

And in the short-term where do you take those resources from?

They've tried.  The new school of public health is a good step, so maybe a bunch of smaller steps will add up to something big.

Quote from: Terror Skink on July 24, 2013, 09:57:23 PM

Thank you for the note.

Even if I agreed completely with your points however, and I really don't know if I do, what you are suggesting is going to require start up capital that UWM doesn't have access to at this point.  Blame the System..the state government...the legislature...whatever.  It is going to take a lot of money to change UWM from a former teachers college and commuter school into hefty research institution.  You have to invest in facilities, faculty, etc. 

And in the short-term where do you take those resources from?

They've tried.  The new school of public health is a good step, so maybe a bunch of smaller steps will add up to something big.

I agree that it is actually too late now. They really needed to leverage the success of UW about 20 years ago and push UW-M.  I know they have tried to accomplish this recently, but now is actually the wrong climate (and they lost promising faculty due to a lack of infrastructure). 

My point was that the UW system is great, but they missed opportunities to make an even bigger impact on the research side, which would have greatly benefitted the state as a whole.

Right now with federal funding rates at essentially all time lows, it is to risky to try and establish a new research University, as you note the seed money required is cost prohibitive.

Many though often over-estimate the costs.  A good faculty member will with research dollars alone, provide a 100% return of investment in less than 6 years.  That doesn't even include the value they bring through teaching.  The main costs are on the core infrastructure.  To establish the facilities necessary for competition with the big Universities you would easily be exceeding a $100 million dollar investment, with a return on investment probably being a 10-15 year timeline.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 23, 2013, 09:20:17 AM
I'm skeptical anyone is going to tank for Wiggins. He's not a generational talent, i.e. LeBron, Ewing, Duncan, etc.

Also, for all the criticism directed toward it, the lottery has all but eliminated the benefits of tanking a season. Since 1990, the league's worst team has ended up with the #1 overall pick just three times (Orlando, 2004; Cleveland, 2003; New Jersey, 1990). The second-worst team has earned it just three times. So even if you wanted to tank for Wiggins - and again, nobody will - you're far from guaranteed a shot at drafting him.

Regardless, no professional sports team owner in this country will ever go for relegation (for good reason), so it's a moot discussion.

I think Wiggins may well be a generational talent. Not sure there's been a better prospect a year away from the draft since the NBA 2003 class. And another plus for this draft is that even if you don't tank and get Wiggins, there are other potential legitimate stars.

It is moot as relegation will never happen here, but it would make late-season games involving non-playoff teams watchable, which they rarely are now. Unfortunate that not even MLS will adopt it.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 24, 2013, 10:43:43 PM
Unfortunate that not even MLS will adopt it.

The MLS couldn't afford to. It already has attendance issues and is still a young, growing league.

Quote from: Terror Skink on July 24, 2013, 09:57:23 PM

Thank you for the note.

Even if I agreed completely with your points however, and I really don't know if I do, what you are suggesting is going to require start up capital that UWM doesn't have access to at this point.  Blame the System..the state government...the legislature...whatever.  It is going to take a lot of money to change UWM from a former teachers college and commuter school into hefty research institution.  You have to invest in facilities, faculty, etc. 

And in the short-term where do you take those resources from?

They've tried.  The new school of public health is a good step, so maybe a bunch of smaller steps will add up to something big.

What about whitewater?

Bro, you're up early. Had some bad Mexican last night?

Quote from: 4everwarriors on July 25, 2013, 04:51:38 AM
Bro, you're up early. Had some bad Mexican last night?

soft shell or bearded tacos?

Quote from: jesmu84 on July 24, 2013, 11:34:03 PM
The MLS couldn't afford to. It already has attendance issues and is still a young, growing league.

It should have been installed from the start. In the future, the lack of promotion/relegation coupled with a summer schedule could very well cost us hosting another World Cup. I hope we can land 2026 and push a 250th anniversary tie in, but I'm not at all convinced Blatter will care if we don't go along with his suggestions (or suitable bribes).

Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on July 24, 2013, 09:40:32 PM
Relax, friend. I know a thing or two about the beautiful game. I know how it works.

All I'm saying is it's not that different here in America. It's not necessarily the grand crapshoot (or "paradigm of competition") you made it out to be just because we don't have pro/rel stateside.

Well compared to the rest of the world, it essentially is -which is why I used the over-exaggerated phrase. Certainly doesn't make it perfect at all. But its not because of the pro/rel system - its because our beloved sports believe in socialism (even baseball).

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 25, 2013, 07:06:39 AM
It should have been installed from the start. In the future, the lack of promotion/relegation coupled with a summer schedule could very well cost us hosting another World Cup. I hope we can land 2026 and push a 250th anniversary tie in, but I'm not at all convinced Blatter will care if we don't go along with his suggestions (or suitable bribes).

I'm not sure Blatter survives long enough - or at least survives ling enough with real power - to have much say over the 2026 World Cup.
That said, the impending disasters in Brazil and Qatar will do far more for any future U.S. bid than anything MLS does,

Quote from: forgetful on July 24, 2013, 09:45:39 PM
I would argue that your viewpoint is a bit short-sighted.  You look at the Universities as competing against one another, which is incorrect for multiple reasons.

1)  Research is national, people are not going to UW because it is in Wisconsin, they are going because of their reputation.  So establishing another research powerhouse would be well worth it.

2)  You would not be devoting resources away from UW by establishing another research center.  Research at UW nets a hefty profit. By investing in another tier 1 University they would bring more dollars into the system and turn an even larger profit.  Not to mention the economic benefits of the research as they can spin off companies from the research.  This would bring in new jobs in fast moving high impact fields, this would be particularly beneficial in Milwaukee.

3)  By establishing another research University they would greatly improve the undergraduate education in the sciences.  Getting hands on research at an early stage of ones career is essential for their downstream success.  This requires that their the undergraduate universities are involved in nationally funded research.  With the research centralized in Madison (and to a lesser extent UW-Milwaukee) you detract from the education of undergraduates in the rest of the state.

Note, to Sultan...Auburn is also not tier 1.  And by Tier 1 I mean by the carnegie system, used to be called R1, now RU/VH, I prefer tier 1.

Of course there's NSF grants and such, but I just don't see how you can establish a new research powerhouse without taking away from Madison.  Every minute that the Board of Regents (and others?) spend developing a plan to make UWGB a national research powerhouse is a minute that isn't spent on how to improve Madison.

Perhaps it's true that states with multiple research I schools generate more revenue, more jobs, and have better overall quality of life in states than states with centralized research, but I would want to see empirical evidence because I can see advantages and disadvantages of each way.  But mostly advantages toward centralization. 

But I do agree that all of this is probably a moot point.  As you already noted, it's probably too late.  Even if we wanted to turn UW-Milwaukee into Wisconsin's MSU, it would take too much start up costs, regardless of where they come from.

Quote from: ElDonBDon on July 28, 2013, 01:08:43 AM
Of course there's NSF grants and such, but I just don't see how you can establish a new research powerhouse without taking away from Madison.  Every minute that the Board of Regents (and others?) spend developing a plan to make UWGB a national research powerhouse is a minute that isn't spent on how to improve Madison.

Perhaps it's true that states with multiple research I schools generate more revenue, more jobs, and have better overall quality of life in states than states with centralized research, but I would want to see empirical evidence because I can see advantages and disadvantages of each way.  But mostly advantages toward centralization. 

But I do agree that all of this is probably a moot point.  As you already noted, it's probably too late.  Even if we wanted to turn UW-Milwaukee into Wisconsin's MSU, it would take too much start up costs, regardless of where they come from.

Although grants are a great source of profit ($100 million in grants equates to ~$50 million in indirect costs...i.e. profits) per year, the big money is in licensing.  In 2011, Northwestern made $191 million from licensing of academic research (patents), from Lyrica alone NW has profitted over $1B in profits.  In 2011, Universities brought in $1.8 B combined. 

But we do agree.  Too late now.  Funding (indirect) and even licensing profits are dwindling.  I tend to be a little less favorable to centralization, because places like UW become too big.  Modern research is interdisciplinary, so smaller departments that are integrated with different disciplines can actually be a big boon to research success.  Places like UW are behemoths, and you lack the collegiality amongst departments, which suppresses intramural research....again its a moot point.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130731/oregon-ducks-football-performance-center/?sct=hp_t1t_a2