Arms race of athletic facilities....taj mahal down south

[hairy worthen]

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

soft shell or bearded tacos?

[brewcity77]

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).

[Aughnanure]

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).

[Pakuni]

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,

[Eldon]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[wadesworld]

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