Big 10 Makes Offer To 4 Schools - 2 Big Xii

[LongJim]

GrayEagle, I appreciate your posts! I know you're not stirring the pot. It's actually nice to genuinely talk about this kind of stuff.

Regarding Nebraska--no doubt they are storied and travel and all that--It's just that they don't really have much other than football and revenue to bring to the table. Those are pretty big deals, obviously, but for a conference that has the academic reputation of the Big 10, Nebraska doesn't strike me as a good fit. It's a great fit for Nebraska, however.

[Arkstfan]

What US News thinks of Nebraska academics isn't nearly as important as what the other schools think of Nebraska academics.

Nebraska is a member of the Association of American Universities. There are only 63 schools that have met their elite standards and only 61 are in the US. Of that 61 only 37 play FBS football. Georgia Tech just got in this year, Rice not until 1985. AAU members account for 6% of all undergrad students but 53% of all doctorates awarded.

Nebraska's academics are just fine for the Big 10.

[LongJim]

What US News thinks of Nebraska academics isn't nearly as important as what the other schools think of Nebraska academics.

Nebraska is a member of the Association of American Universities. There are only 63 schools that have met their elite standards and only 61 are in the US. Of that 61 only 37 play FBS football. Georgia Tech just got in this year, Rice not until 1985. AAU members account for 6% of all undergrad students but 53% of all doctorates awarded.

Nebraska's academics are just fine for the Big 10.

Okay, you've convinced me. It makes sense to add them from that standpoint as the Big 10 is a large consortium of research U's. Beyond that, (and athletically) I still think it's a better gain for Nebraska than it is for the Big 10 overall.

[wardly]

big 10 a.d.s meet june 1st. we should know something then.

[yyz28]

Academics don't matter. It's all about the dollar, folks.

[Eagle1855]

Who would be the next Big XII schools ?

http://www.810whb.com/blog/3509

How good a football program has performed is only one component of adding a school to a conference, which is why you'll never see Boise State in the Pac-10.

Texas and Texas A&M haven't any interest in UH being a part of their conference. Neither would any of the other teams in the Big 12 North like Kansas and Kansas State who recruit heavily in Houston. The Big 12 already HAS the Houston market- they've got UT and A&M.

TCU makes sense, but I'm not sure they want another private school. They would score the DFW market, but they've already got that too.

On the other hand, I could see them locking up UH and TCU if for no other reason than not allowing any other conference to get a foot in those markets as things shake up.

If I were Texas and A&M, I'd be tempted to look west for a new conference. As for us, well our best bet at a BCS conference isn't going to be the Big 12.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Eagle1855

[Travis]

How good a football program has performed is only one component of adding a school to a conference, which is why you'll never see Boise State in the Pac-10.

Texas and Texas A&M haven't any interest in UH being a part of their conference. Neither would any of the other teams in the Big 12 North like Kansas and Kansas State who recruit heavily in Houston. The Big 12 already HAS the Houston market- they've got UT and A&M.

TCU makes sense, but I'm not sure they want another private school. They would score the DFW market, but they've already got that too.

On the other hand, I could see them locking up UH and TCU if for no other reason than not allowing any other conference to get a foot in those markets as things shake up.

If I were Texas and A&M, I'd be tempted to look west for a new conference. As for us, well our best bet at a BCS conference isn't going to be the Big 12.

But, what then does that mean for the Big 12 North? I just don't see how TCU and Houston help with Kansas, K State, Iowa State and Colorado.

I also don't see Oklahoma and OSU wanting to be a partof the Big 12 North due to history with the South. But, maybe that is just me.

[MeanGreenTeeth]

How good a football program has performed is only one component of adding a school to a conference, which is why you'll never see Boise State in the Pac-10.

Texas and Texas A&M haven't any interest in UH being a part of their conference. Neither would any of the other teams in the Big 12 North like Kansas and Kansas State who recruit heavily in Houston. The Big 12 already HAS the Houston market- they've got UT and A&M.

TCU makes sense, but I'm not sure they want another private school. They would score the DFW market, but they've already got that too.

On the other hand, I could see them locking up UH and TCU if for no other reason than not allowing any other conference to get a foot in those markets as things shake up.

If I were Texas and A&M, I'd be tempted to look west for a new conference. As for us, well our best bet at a BCS conference isn't going to be the Big 12.

Yeah, I think our only chance at the Big 12 would be if Texas and A&M left for greener pastures and the Big 12 was committed to only large public schools (eg add Houston and UNT in hopes of elevating their status and somehow holding the DFW and Houston markets). Of course Oklahoma/Oklahoma State would be looking to jump ship at the first chance.

[GrayEagle]

How good a football program has performed is only one component of adding a school to a conference, which is why you'll never see Boise State in the Pac-10.

Texas and Texas A&M haven't any interest in UH being a part of their conference. Neither would any of the other teams in the Big 12 North like Kansas and Kansas State who recruit heavily in Houston. The Big 12 already HAS the Houston market- they've got UT and A&M.

TCU makes sense, but I'm not sure they want another private school. They would score the DFW market, but they've already got that too.

On the other hand, I could see them locking up UH and TCU if for no other reason than not allowing any other conference to get a foot in those markets as things shake up.

If I were Texas and A&M, I'd be tempted to look west for a new conference. As for us, well our best bet at a BCS conference isn't going to be the Big 12.

I buy your logic up to a point. But, let's say UT and A&M refuse the SEC or want to realign the Big 12 without a team in either DFW or Houston. What if the SEC should decide to add Houston and North Texas? Having games against the Alabamas, Floridas and LSUs that can be seen live in each market would have alumni crawling out of the woodwork if both schools became competitive (and I believe that they would be because they would be able to attract higher-rated recruits).

Texas and A&M own the two large markets because they have no competition at their level. They do have a lot of alumni in both markets but not as large as UNT and Houston in their respective markets.

If The University and TAMU decide to stay the course with the Big 12 it would behoove them to put a team in each market lest another (equal) conference does. TCU and Houston would be the logical choices.

[untjim1995]

I buy your logic up to a point. But, let's say UT and A&M refuse the SEC or want to realign the Big 12 without a team in either DFW or Houston. What if the SEC should decide to add Houston and North Texas? Having games against the Alabamas, Floridas and LSUs that can be seen live in each market would have alumni crawling out of the woodwork if both schools became competitive (and I believe that they would be because they would be able to attract higher-rated recruits).

Texas and A&M own the two large markets because they have no competition at their level. They do have a lot of alumni in both markets but not as large as UNT and Houston in their respective markets.

If The University and TAMU decide to stay the course with the Big 12 it would behoove them to put a team in each market lest another (equal) conference does. TCU and Houston would be the logical choices.

If the SEC expands, it will be with big-time BCS programs. If they expanded, they would probably get current ACC teams or non-Texas Big XII teams. I don't believe that Texas or A&M will ever got to the SEC. The academics over there just don't match up, and the Big Ten and the Pac-10 would give them both excellent inroads both athletically and academically. Remember, especially in the Big Ten's case, the research funding dwarfs the money raised even by a huge TV contract. UT and A&M would fit perfectly in both cases. I would expect, however, to see the Okie schools to be on the SEC's radar, along with schools like Florida State, Miami, Clemson, or Georgia Tech.

No matter what happens though with the Texas schools, I still don't see where the state would allow any other school to join a league that has equal or greater name value than the conference where UT sits. Back in the early 90s, the SEC wanted Texas, who quickly said no, so they decided to go after A&M and Houston. The Texas legislature though made it clear that the two big programs (UT and A&M) are stuck together like siamese twins. So where one goes, so goes the other. But what about UH? They were ready to go to the SEC, but nope, that ended quick. And, of course, the SWC broke up and UH got left behind just like Rice, TCU, and SMU. You see, it is all about power in the legislature--and that power is from UT and A&M predominantly (see PUF dollars)and they weren't going to let UH join a league that they could surpass the big two from. Imagine if UH had gotten into the SEC back then and were the only Texas school in that league--they would be at least better off than A&M and maybe even Texas today, with that rich SEC TV contract and all of the bowl money.

I just don't see a scenario at play where another Texas school will get into this new Super BCS, except for Tech possibly, but even if they get protected again, it will be due to the fact that they will be in the same big conference as the other two. I just don't see any way that another Texas school will ever be allowed to join a league that could give them a chance to "surpass" the big guys. Just my $.02 but history is on my side on this one. I agree that TCU and UH will probably be in a league together again, but it won't be in a Super BCS-type conference. This separation of the Haves and Have-Nots looks like it will be swift and it will hurt some feelings again, just this time it will be others looking in from the outside (see Baylor, possibly Tech) who laughed at those who they left behind 15 years ago.

[GrayEagle]

Okay, I admit to being ignorant in more fields that cold fusion and cardiac surgery but someone needs to explain the need for the academic universities to stick together. If you're talking about AAU colleges, most of them have long established their lines for research dollar.

True, the only Tier 1 universities in the SEC are Vanderbilt and Florida but several others have the capabilities if that became a priority.

This is an athletics consortium, not academics, and it's all about money. The SEC could dominate from Texas to Florida with the likes of Florida, Georgia, Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. That would more than match the Big 10 even if they get Notre Dame and Nebraska.

If you think that the Big 10 is taking Rutgers because of their academics, think again. New Brunswick happens to sit in the largest media market...New York. A similar case could be made for Missouri, the only major player in the state. Nebraska football has been known nationwide for years. True, in Notre Dame they would get a top-notch academic institution but one that is the most storied in football as well.

The Pac-10 has high academics but they are more about liberal politics and secularism. Otherwise, BYU has higher academics than several of their members but they don't fit the mold so they're out.

Maybe academics do play a major role in some conferences but for the life of me I don't see why.

[UNTFan23]

Maybe academics do play a major role in some conferences but for the life of me I don't see why.

It makes for good sound bites when broadcasters fawn over a program on TV.

[CMJ]

Maybe academics do play a major role in some conferences but for the life of me I don't see why.

Among my Pac-10 friends, the thought is, if all the schools but one have high academic standards -- the school with lower bar will quickly rise to the top because they have a great pool of talent to draw from (and the school itself is easier making it more likely - in theory - that they'd get kids who just wanted to play ball and not get an education).

That, just as much as anything else, is why the Pac-10 has stayed the same size for so long according to my friends.

Edited May 13, 2010 by CMJ

[VideoEagle]

Among my Pac-10 friends, the thought is, if all the schools but one have high academic stadards -- the school with lower bar will quickly rise to the top because they have a great pool of talent to draw from(and the school itself is easier making it more likely - in theory - that they'd get kids who just wanted to play ball and not get an education).

That, just as much as anything else, is why the Pac-10 has stayed the same size for so long according to my friends.

I have heard exactly the same thing from friends who attended Pac 10 schools.

[Arkstfan]

Academics absolutely matter when discussing the Big 10. Notre Dame is the only non-AAU school the Big 10 would consider.

Recent information indicates that the Big 10 Network derives more income from advertising than subscribers. That's highly unusual for a cable net. Nebraska draws an audience. Depending on who you believe Nebraska football is either the highest grossing or second highest grossing school for PPV revenue. More people will plunk down $30 to watch Nebraska beat a Sun Belt school than will put money down for a similar Auburn or TAMU game.

That means those people will bug the ever lovin' crap out of their cable provider for Big 10 Net and they will watch the games helping generate higher ratings and higher ad rates.

[NT80]

Among my Pac-10 friends, the thought is, if all the schools but one have high academic stadards -- the school with lower bar will quickly rise to the top because they have a great pool of talent to draw from(and the school itself is easier making it more likely - in theory - that they'd get kids who just wanted to play ball and not get an education).

Oh, like Troy?

[wardly]

I have heard exactly the same thing from friends who attended Pac 10 schools.

i saw article today announcing new pac 10 tv contract that was so rich that they might not need to expand their market and may not expand to 12 school. google " pac 10 expansion "for article.