after 20 years in BIG have the benefits matched the projection?

[blion72]

it is my understanding that PSU had projected to see benefits as follows:



Increased research $$$ due to more elite collaborationBenefit to FB be being in a conferenceBenefit to other sports = the All sports conference that Joe wantedMore national prestige = PSU moves up in the rankings toward NW, Mich, Wisconsin and Univ Illinois (BIG top schools)
I am not sure that we have gotten what was expected.

1) research has fallen nationally for universities, however our RD funding has not benefited from the BIG collaboration as much as we thought (per those on this forum who have insight into our BOT review on this topic)

2) FB has not benefited much from BIG affiliation. If anything, PSU wound up giving cred to the conference, and did not get much access to the robust talent in the BIG. instead the other teams seemed to recruit even more people from our backyard while we didn't get as many from their area. We did get some Michigan players while they were down - but assume that is over with JH arrival.

3) our other sports that were good are still good, but other than hockey - not seeing our gain. in hockey we are as startup (pretty good one), so hard to figure this. I am not sure how much the "BIG" brand is even relevant to hockey. We could have joined Hockey East and done the same thing. anyhow, do you see any minor sports we gained in. I know in men's BB we were supposed to see massive improvement from BIG membership. I am trying to look at glass half full re MBB benefit from BIG - just not seeing it.

4) do we have more prestige from league. Bringing in RU and MD only helps them more than us. I see that move as aimed at helping the BIG if we moved to another league. Is there something I am not seeing here?

I am not trying to burn BIG or suggest we go somewhere else....that dog probably already hunted. did I miss benefits we have gotten from the move? just saying I think this move after 2 decades benefited the league a lot more than PSU.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

We get world class officiating*

.

 

[LionJim]

Another huge plus: we have names on the jerseys now. ***

ftg

 

[massimoManca II]

Bowl-rev... Nevermind*

World Class Racketeers

 

[psu00]

Honest answer- I think it's a mix. I don't think you can get an accurate 'what if' on research in and out of the big ten. I know many here worship at the altar of the CIC and it may have some benefits but it's not the 'be all- end all' that many think. I'd guess research wise is a wash- no real significant difference in or out of the big ten.

As for sports- I'm sure it made coordinating schedules easier (especially for olympic sports). I think there are some benefits to conference membership (in any conference- especially the way football is heading with the P5) but there are drawbacks as well. Focusing on football and basketball since they make the money- basketball hasn't benefitted an ounce in the big ten. Football I think was actually hurt by the move. I think the team went from a national focus of trying to be the best by playing USC, ND, Bama, Texas etc to trying to fit in with conference and focusing on just that Midwest region- trying to be the best in the conference. I think the recruiting (in an area that had no interest traditionally in Penn St) took a hit for a while and it just wasn't the right 'match'. To me it just always seemed like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I think the team suffered some with the mismatch and the focus changed from national to only on the conference (the standards were lowered IMO as a result). Overall there were pluses and minuses but I think PSU ended up a little more on the minus side.

As far as academic reputation- I think that has far more to do with the focus of the respective university and its administration attempts to improve rather than because of what conference your in. Vandy or Florida in the SEC show that pretty well. I don't think any university gets a bump in reputation solely based on conference affiliation. Otherwise why aren't Washington St, Arizona St. etc jumping higher on lists when they are affiliated with Stanford, Cal, UCLA etc?

I think the bottom line is that it was likely a good move for a select few olympic sports, no real change for the great majority of olympic sports, a drop for football and no change for basketball.

 

[michnittlion]

Yes, absolutely

for the most part, our academic and athletic peers are B1G schools. Ohio State, Michigan State, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Maryland, Rutgers. To a large degree in the "University World", you are the company you keep. And that group above is pretty good company.


They, of course, ALSO benefit from being associated with us.


IMO, our football struggles while a B1G member were mostly self-imposed. We got stale in the 2000s. Then of course the recent probation ---- whoever exactly one blames for that, it ultimately was our fault. But big picture: our problems of the past are correctable problems.


Despite what some arrogant U-M and OSU fans think, it is NOT those schools who caused Penn State to fall off a bit in football. We stood toe-to-toe in the 1990s before the issues referred to above reared their head. Here's a fun stat which none of them can ever counter when presented with the fact: for any X from 1 to 7, it is true that PSU had a better aggregate record in their first X years within the B1G then in their last X years as an independent. If one is to argue the opinion that "the B1G destroyed Penn State football!", it's very hard to couch that opinion with the above fact.
This post was edited on 4/15 9:42 PM by michnittlion

 

[fairgambit]

It's not just about the money. Its about...OK, it's just about the money.

It's always been just about the money.


This post was edited on 4/15 9:39 PM by fairgambit

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Originally posted by blion72:
it is my understanding that PSU had projected to see benefits as follows:



Increased research $$$ due to more elite collaborationBenefit to FB be being in a conferenceBenefit to other sports = the All sports conference that Joe wantedMore national prestige = PSU moves up in the rankings toward NW, Mich, Wisconsin and Univ Illinois (BIG top schools)
I am not sure that we have gotten what was expected.

1) research has fallen nationally for universities, however our RD funding has not benefited from the BIG collaboration as much as we thought (per those on this forum who have insight into our BOT review on this topic) PSU research dollars were $262M in 1990 the year PSU joined the conference. For fiscal 2014 research dollars were $813M slightly down from a record $843M in 2013. How much of this increase can be attributable to membership in the B1G is open to argument.

http://www.research.psu.edu/about/reports/annual-report-of-research-activity

2) FB has not benefited much from BIG affiliation. Tell me you're not serious. If anything, PSU wound up giving cred to the conference, and did not get much access to the robust talent in the BIG. instead the other teams seemed to recruit even more people from our backyard while we didn't get as many from their area. Blame your PSU coaching staff who preferred to primarily work the MD/DC/VA/SC/NJ/NY corridors. We did get some Michigan players while they were down - but assume that is over with JH arrival. Here are some OH/MI/IN verbals/signees over the years: Lavert Hill, KiJana Carter, Joe Jurevicious, Jeff Hartings, Chance Sorrell, Anthony Stanko, Sam Ficken, Allen Robinson, CJ Olyanan, Nate Cadogan, Brandon Beachum, Deonte Pannel, Mike Zordich, Ryan Breen, Chris Colasanti, Andrew Daley, Gerald Cadogan, Daryll Clark, Tony Davis, Jed Hill, Josn Gaines, Trent Varva, Vince Gliatta, Donnie Johnson, Tim Shaw, JR Zwierzynski.

3) our other sports that were good are still good, but other than hockey - not seeing our gain. in hockey we are as startup (pretty good one), so hard to figure this. I am not sure how much the "BIG" brand is even relevant to hockey. The BTN covers it giving it TV exposure. Hockey fiscally operates in the black but not without the BTN. We could have joined Hockey East and done the same thing. anyhow, do you see any minor sports we gained in. I know in men's BB we were supposed to see massive improvement from BIG membership. I am trying to look at glass half full re MBB benefit from BIG - just not seeing it. PSU gets paid half a million dollars for its participation in the Big Ten Tournament and receives nearly $2M of NCAA tournament money even when it doesn't participate. Don't blame the conference for PSU's historically poor performance in BB, blame Curley and the coaches he hired.

4) do we have more prestige from league. Bringing in RU and MD only helps them more than us. I see that move as aimed at helping the BIG if we moved to another league. Is there something I am not seeing here?

Yes! A reported $40M/yr beginning in 2016/17 from TV/Radio/Bowl Games/Tournaments which supports over 30 intercollegiate sports which normally competes at a high enough level to keep PSU in the top ten of the Directors Cup standings.

I am not trying to burn BIG or suggest we go somewhere else....that dog probably already hunted. did I miss benefits we have gotten from the move? just saying I think this move after 2 decades benefited the league a lot more than PSU.
OK, how does PSU replace $40M/yr that it will shortly be receiving from the B1G? None of the other four major conferences can compete with that number except for maybe the SEC. Earning that kind of incremental money going it alone ain't happening.

This post was edited on 4/16 12:26 AM by Cruising Route 66

 

[thecoolestfish]

Who has argued that the B1G has 'destroyed' Penn State football?

Originally posted by michnittlion:

Despite what some arrogant U-M and OSU fans think, it is NOT those schools who caused Penn State to fall off a bit in football. We stood toe-to-toe in the 1990s before the issues referred to above reared their head. Here's a fun stat which none of them can ever counter when presented with the fact: for any X from 1 to 7, it is true that PSU had a better aggregate record in their first X years within the B1G then in their last X years as an independent. If one is to argue the opinion that "the B1G destroyed Penn State football!", it's very hard to couch that opinion with the above fact.
This post was edited on 4/15 9:42 PM by michnittlion

First, correlation is not causation. Your 'x from 1-7 years' exercise is virtually meaningless. You don't know how PSU would have faired in those first x years of B1G play if they hadn't joined the B1G. Perhaps we would have won a MNC in 1994.

Secondly, did PSU have a better record in those first x years because they were better, or because they now got to play in a crappy conference (easier comp)? In other words, are you saying PSU was better off in the B1G because of the weak comp? Not a strong argument, IMO.

 

[psu00]

Re: It's not just about the money. Its about...OK, it's just about the money.

This is the bottom line ^^^^^. It's always been about the money and nothing else. It has nothing to do with the 'company you keep' as is plainly obvious with Vandy and Florida.

 

[nits74]

Re: It's not just about the money. Its about...OK, it's just about the money.

That's it, and for it we sold our soul.

 

[michnittlion]

I must not have been clear in my point

I'm not arguing the B1G "destroyed" Penn State football. What I have encountered --- especially living in both Michigan & Ohio --- are a lot of arrogant U-M and OSU fans who argue "we destroyed big bad Penn State football, Penn State was the Beast of the East but we took them down a peg. Once they got into conference play and had to deal with the rigors of B1G football, they couldn't match up."


That argument (again, by arrogant U-M and OSU fans) doesn't make any sense. PSU improved (aggregate record) from 1992 to 1993. PSU improved (aggregate record) from 1991-1992 to 1993-1994. Et cetera all the way up to "from 1986-1992 to 1993-1999." That's even with a national title year included in the 1986-1992 time period.

This post was edited on 4/15 11:06 PM by michnittlion

 

[Art]

Read what fairgambit wrote.

It was all about the money and the money was from sports. Regarding enhancements to research, I can't say who would be the bigger idiot, the person trying to sell that notion or the one buying it.

Did it payoff? Yeah, it did.

 

[Southeastern PA Buck]

No

Joining the B1G has brought the Penn State brand down in just about every conceivable way. Being associated with this inbred, unsophisticated, midwestern, hick conference has done nothing positive for this once proud flagship university of Pennsylvania. We were already a public Ivy university and there was no need to jump at this offer to join in 1992. But people sold out dear old State for money and now we all suffer for that poor decision.

The day we can finally join a conference that is befitting of our brand will be the greatest day in the history of PSU

 

[thecoolestfish]

Ahh yeah... I gotcha now. Sorry. **

Jd

 

[N&B4PSU]

holllllld on there, Bobalooie

we were recuiting there long before the B10 deal. to name a few pros...

Joe Hartings, Kijana Carter, Curtis Enis, JJ, kim Herring, Greg Huntington, Terry Killens, Bill Lenkaitis, (to be fair, not sure joe recruited him), OJ McDuffie, Lance Mehl, Leo Wisniewski, Mike Zorditch (and others who did not have pro careers or i might have missed) were here well prior to the conference startup.

Joe had already shown he was able to get studs from the midwest if he felt it worth the trip. Getting OJ, Carter, and Enis were huge and really pissed off ohioans.

so let's not be throwing out how much good getting into the B10 helped us to recruit there (perhaps a better argument is whether playing in the B10 encouraged players to come to penn state who might otherwise have gone elsewhere if not for the chance to play in the B10.. that i can't answer).

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Re: holllllld on there, Bobalooie

Originally posted by N&B4PSU:
we were recuiting there long before the B10 deal. to name a few pros...

Joe Hartings, Kijana Carter, Curtis Enis, JJ, kim Herring, Greg Huntington, Terry Killens, Bill Lenkaitis, (to be fair, not sure joe recruited him), OJ McDuffie, Lance Mehl, Leo Wisniewski, Mike Zorditch (and others who did not have pro careers or i might have missed) were here well prior to the conference startup.

Joe had already shown he was able to get studs from the midwest if he felt it worth the trip. Getting OJ, Carter, and Enis were huge and really pissed off ohioans.

so let's not be throwing out how much good getting into the B10 helped us to recruit there (perhaps a better argument is whether playing in the B10 encouraged players to come to penn state who might otherwise have gone elsewhere if not for the chance to play in the B10.. that i can't answer).

The OP intimated that from 2001 forward PSU did not secure many recruits from other B1G states. All I did was point out that they did and who they were.

 

[9fold]

Re: It's not just about the money. Its about...OK, it's just about the money.

Yeah, but don't forget about the....O.K. It's just about the money.

 

[Zenophile]

^^ Yup ^^ **


nfm

 

[Cletus11]

So you think an independent Penn State in 2015 is in better shape than a BIg Ten PSU?

Are you serious?

The amount of $$$ that PSU has brought in from Big Ten participation and the TV contracts over the past 20+ years is well over $100 million dollars. Money that has allowed PSU to keep up with the Joneses for most of it's Olympic sports.

If you want to argue that what if of PSU choicing to go into the ACC back in 1990 versus the BIg Ten, then maybe that is a good discussion to have. But there is zero chance that if PSU had gone the stay independent route that they would be in better shape.

 

[massimoManca II]

lotsa money cloaked in a veneer of legitimacy - sound familiar?


your ears ringing NCAA?

your ears ringing tSM?

 

[Sullivan]

Re: No

Originally posted by Southeastern PA Buck:
Joining the B1G has brought the Penn State brand down in just about every conceivable way. Being associated with this inbred, unsophisticated, midwestern, hick conference has done nothing positive for this once proud flagship university of Pennsylvania. We were already a public Ivy university and there was no need to jump at this offer to join in 1992. But people sold out dear old State for money and now we all suffer for that poor decision.

Maybe you can explain the sophistication of the Southeastern part of the state, that we don't see in states such as Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin....

 

[SR108]

Re: holllllld on there, Bobalooie

The names you mention are certainly valid solid players that came from Big 10 recruiting areas. However, what they also have in common, is they are all from the 90's or before. I loved Joe, but he wasn't getting it done in Big Ten country, recruiting wise, after the turn of the century.

 

[retsio]

Let's understand -- the Big Ten Conference...

will always be about the Big 2 and the Little 8 in every aspect of conference life....as administered by the Big Ten offices.

However, as Penn State shows allegiance to the Big Ten conference by placing all banners of the Big Ten schools in prominent public positions.....several other schools do not (Michigan), Penn State has over the years, attempted to upgrade all facets of the educational process and now is regarded with Northwestern, Stanford and Notre Dame in graduation rates and prestige. Perhaps a major component of this is Penn States membership in the AAU rather than the CIC.

However, most importantly in ALL sports in Big Ten competition.......since Penn State has been a member of the Big Ten.......Penn State has won more Big Ten and NCAA Championships than all the other present members of the Big Ten.

Not too shabby, we do not stink -- actually we are very good (as we know), but a long way to go to overcome the stigma of the Big 2 from the offices in Chicago.

 

[SR108]

Re: holllllld on there, Bobalooie

How many after 2000, and how many played meaningful football? I count Clark and Robinson.

 

[kgilbert78]

Re: Let's understand -- the Big Ten Conference...

Not so. Basketball is at least as important to the conference. And while tOSU and UM have had good BB teams through the years, so have other BiG schools.

There have been benefits to BiG participation in other sports--and I do realize that some on these boards care only about football, but many of us care about more than that. Women's volleyball really benefited big time. They went from an uncompetitive situation to a very competitive one. While we do dominate the conference, the play is much tougher top to bottom--and we don;t always win the conference either (just most of the time), The only way we would be in a more competitive situation (and even there, I'm not sure) is being in the PAC 12. Men's soccer is another. We created a conference league in that sport by joining. It used to be just IU as a power. Now, it's not. We have better competition. Women's soccer is similar. One might make an argument that the ACC would have been good too. But we are not talking about the choice then but what we have gained over 20 years. Swimming and Track are much better in the Big 10 than where we were. There are other examples.

This post was edited on 4/16 9:56 AM by kgilbert78

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Re: No

Originally posted by Southeastern PA Buck:
Joining the B1G has brought the Penn State brand down in just about every conceivable way. Being associated with this inbred, unsophisticated, midwestern, hick conference has done nothing positive for this once proud flagship university of Pennsylvania. We were already a public Ivy university and there was no need to jump at this offer to join in 1992. But people sold out dear old State for money and now we all suffer for that poor decision.

The day we can finally join a conference that is befitting of our brand will be the greatest day in the history of PSU

HAAA!!! That's what Dave Gavitt and your good buddies at Pitt, Boston College, and Syracuse were saying about US in November 1981 when they stuck it right up our a$$. Later, your buddies in the whole BE used that as an excuse against us to stick it right up our a$$. Didn't think a "cow pasture school" could pull in the television numbers they were looking for. Thank goodness, those "inbred, unsophisticated, Midwestern hicks" in the Big Ten threw us a lifeline when no one else would.

Title 9 was just coming into play, and the budget was getting tighter. We were only supporting 11 sports 1981 when the Eastern Schools first kicked us in the nuts. There is absolutely, positively NO WAY ON EARTH our Athletic program would have been what it was or is either pre-2011, or ESPECIALLY POST-2011 if we would have remained Independent.

If the ACC was so interested in us, why didn't they ask us first.

Here's the simplest answer to the OP's question:

If we would have been an Independent in 2011, we wouldn't be playing football right now. How's that for an answer.

 

[Art]

What are you talking about?

PSU is a member of both the AAU and the CIC. "Regarded with.... Stanford in ...prestige?" Not in your lifetime.Might begin to rival Michigan....no, again, not in your lifetime.

 

[Cosmos]

^^ A voice of reason. As much as I hate the 'lil Ten it helps us. *

X

 

[retsio]

What are YOU talking about?

I have known Penn State to be a member of both the AAU and the CIC for a long time.

And I have lived both in various locations of the Big Ten footprint and outside of the footprint to experience the reputation that Penn State has, and I have visited all of the universities that I mentioned more than once.

Anything else in your lifetime?

 

[Evan Ceg]

In football our B1G membership has been a wash or arguably, a slight negative. In men's basketball, we're recruiting better players but we're playing in a league with great players. PSU MBB struggled before the B1G, so I'm not going to blame the B1G for their struggles today. In every other Penn State sport that I can think of, the B1G has been a positive asset.

In the first couple years of B1G membership we were getting crushed in most of our "Olympic" sports, and we had to up our game with full scholarship allotments and better facilities. I presume Rutgers, and perhaps Maryland to a lesser extent, are experiencing the same dynamic.

We joined the B1G because its revenue sharing offered financial security for ICA and our non-revenue sports in case football slipped in the ;post-Paterno era (which was expected at the time to occur much earlier). We have to realize that we're one of 11/12/14. We also joined because Joe looked down the road and understood that the only school with a chance to survive as an independent was Notre Dame. He was right.

If we were a football independent today, we could look forward to 12 games with teams like Navy and Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee.

 

[nits74]

In football our B1G membership has been a wash or arguably, a slight negative.[/B]

More than a slight negative. And face it, football drives the bus. All the Big Ten has done for Penn State is to homogenize it. And that "ain't no positive".

 

[N&B4PSU]

a 'kind of' a reply to all on this

clearly, i was not interpreting the OP correctly... or CR either.

Cruising mentioned names from pre-B10 so i had assumed he was including them in his argument that joining the B10 was helping us recruit the midwest.

Obviously, Joe had recruited the midwest long before joining and been successful in so doing... and i provided names to show that. He explained his position, and i see now where he was going with that.

Now, as to the players we got afterwards... while i agree we haven't turned out pros (from that region) at the same clip, i'd argue we have gotten players of the same skill set.. but that they did not develop in the same manner. whether that would be changes in how kids handle things, poor talent evaluation by everyone in the business, or poor development by the coaching staff... hard to say. maybe a bit of all 3.

But when you look at the names... we certainly got some good ones (none matched the caliber of enis, oj, or kj... but pretty close). thinking.. beachum, anthony adams come to mind. very good, not quite the level as the other.

so while we have some players we DD get from the midwest after joining the B10, I'd make the case that the talent level of those we got was a notch below those we had picked up prior to joining.

Bjut the argument that cannot be decided is whether we landed players who would have gone elsewhere if we were not in the B10. Would Arrington or Courtney Brown have been here? I don't know those answers.

This post was edited on 4/16 12:58 PM by N&B4PSU

 

[N&B4PSU]

you really believe that?

that employers would view a degree from penn state on par with one from stanford, um, nw, nd?

really?

And that isn't saying anything bad about penn state... it has continued to upgrade and improve over the years (i remember penn state from the 60's and 70's... this version is light years better) and that's all great.

but unless you are talking about a football/education blend of success and prestige, i'm gonna hafta say.. um, that would be a no. and i doubt that in what's left of my lifetime i will see it happen that psu ranks on par with the aforementioned group in terms of prestige (facilities, yes).

btw, i've never been a huge believer that grad rates equal better schools. poor grad rates are one thing, but grad rates are influenced by myriad circumstances (i.e., one might argue that easier schools have higher grad rates... that money matters, since having it likely means a kid can devote his time to school, not part time jobs.. so forth).

 

[dawgduice]

The Big 10 did NOT ruin PSU football. Joe did that. Sadly, he just got tired and complacent. The Sandusky junk just drove a final spike. NOW, I believe Franklin will bring PSU back to what it was when we first entered the Big - a program to be feared!! I do believe the Big has been good for the other sports (although I'm not sure we realize BB is a sport).

WE ARE !!!

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Re: you really believe that?

Originally posted by N&B4PSU:
you really believe that?[/URL] that employers would view a degree from penn state on par with one from stanford, um, nw, nd?

really?

And that isn't saying anything bad about penn state... it has continued to upgrade and improve over the years (i remember penn state from the 60's and 70's... this version is light years better) and that's all great.

but unless you are talking about a football/education blend of success and prestige, i'm gonna hafta say.. um, that would be a no. and i doubt that in what's left of my lifetime i will see it happen that psu ranks on par with the aforementioned group in terms of prestige (facilities, yes).

btw, i've never been a huge believer that grad rates equal better schools. poor grad rates are one thing, but grad rates are influenced by myriad circumstances (i.e., one might argue that easier schools have higher grad rates... that money matters, since having it likely means a kid can devote his time to school, not part time jobs.. so forth).

Well, the Wall Street Journal thought so pre-November 2011.

I have lived outside of Pennsylvania since I graduated in the early 1970s, and it was becoming more and more obvious every year that a Penn State degree was being looked at as being more and more elite. You said you graduated from Penn State, people would IMMEDIATELY treat you with an increased level of respect. It was incredible.

All that fell right off a cliff the day Linda Kelly had her grandstanding presser, and only got worse after the BOT's hack Freeh released his hit job on Joe, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz. Things are SLOWLY getting better as far as our reputation goes. But make no mistake, the fact we were in the Big Ten associated with schools considered at the top academically when it comes to the Power 5 Conferences, and the fact Joe had developed a reputation of putting academics ahead of athletics, in people's minds, gave people all over the Country the impression that a Penn State degree made you a step above the rest.

From the actual Wall Street article and survey:

Penn State Tops Recruiter Rankings:

Recruiters say graduates of top public universities are often among the most prepared and well-rounded academically, and companies have found they fit well into their corporate cultures and over time have the best track record in their firms.

The Wall Street Journal survey of recruiting executives set out to identify the majors and schools that best prepare students to land jobs that are satisfying, well-paid and have growth potential. The Journal collaborated with Seattle-based salary and career-data provider PayScale.com and Boston-based human-resource management firm Cambria Consulting to seek feedback from large public and private companies in nearly 30 industries, including finance, consulting, technology, engineering, marketing and health care, as well as nonprofits and government agencies.

The Journal asked companies to rank schools that produce the best-qualified graduates-overall and by major. Recruiters made clear they preferred big state schools over elite liberal arts schools, such as the Ivies.

So where are Harvard University and other exclusive schools? While many companies that answered The Journal's survey say they recruit and hire Ivy League graduates, far fewer ranked them as top picks.

While companies didn't rate Ivy League grads best overall, several did favor them in some specific majors. Stanford University, for example, was ranked No. 11 in engineering recruits and No. 16 in business/economics; Harvard was No. 4 in business and economics.

Partnerships also play a key role. Universities and companies strike research collaborations that often include student participation. Companies get an early look at promising students, leading to internships and job offers.

Here is the link to the 2010 article. There is a good short video embedded in the link explaining how the Wall Street Journal came up with their results. Interesting that 3 of the top 4 schools are Big Ten Universities. :



http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704358904575477643369663352

 

[N&B4PSU]

we travel different places

great post... but i've traveled quite a bit and worked at some pretty top scale places... and few would put penn state in the same breath as nw or stanford. now, nd and um.. i'd say ballpark.

and i think joe had a lot to do with the perception of psu as an academic achievement school (odd, how despite all the positive he did, louie louie said we were a culture of football...). after the 2011 fallout, things got moshed.

but i will say that most places i traveled prior to 2011 viewed a psu degree in a very positive light, but not on par with the elite schools.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Re: holllllld on there, Bobalooie

Originally posted by SR108:
How many after 2000, and how many played meaningful football? I count Clark and Robinson.

Depends what you definition of meaningful is. If its playing enough to earn a letter, then I would say a fair number of those I noted played meaningful football.



This post was edited on 4/16 8:32 PM by Cruising Route 66

 

[getmyjive11]

-We have had 27 of our 46 NCAA championships since joining the Big Ten. Big Boost for other sports. Football... no boost, but I don't think we were hurt by being in the Big Ten, our program was wounded by Joe getting old and then the scandal.
-Hard to tell about academic prestige. We made our biggest strides in the 80's and have been ranked somewhere in the 40-50 range since the early 90's. I would say little to no change.
-Research expenditures nearly doubled since 2000. I would think that research dollars are way up since before we joined the Big Ten. I have no idea if the Big Ten has anything to do with that (I would think that is does, but only slightly).