RE: For Big 10, PAC, and SEC Posters: What NCAA Changes would you like?
JR is right about the lines of demarcation. Based on total athletic revenue and overall US News and World Report rankings, which about as good an indicator as we can get for this discussion, there is not much of an argument to exclude anyone outside of #61, Mississippi State. Iowa State, Vanderbilt, Pittsburgh, Colorado, Rutgers, and Texas Tech precede Ole Miss on the revenue rankings, at that is the line for schools making at least $55 million. It also is the cutoff line for schools that rank highly on the academic rankings, which, in this case, is #165 nationally or higher. For 61 schools to be the top grossing and that high in national academic ranking is pretty impressive actually. UConn comes in at #47 on that list, by the way... they are getting in.
#62 is where it get tricky. That is UNLV, which is ranked somewhere outside the top 200 national universities. They make $54 million. The next teams, in order, are Oregon State, BYU, Wake Forest, and Washington State, which are the obvious bubble schools, anyway. At #67 is Memphis, which is a similar profile to UNLV; weaker academics, weak football, strong basketball. Below Memphis is Utah (they will rise in revenue once the full PAC money kicks in), South Florida, Ole Miss, SMU, Cincinnati, Temple, SDSU, and then #75 is Penn. Once you get to the Temple/SDSU schools, arguments for inclusion get harder and harder to make. For example team #80 is James Madison, and team #90 is Rice.
If all five of the power conferences are to survive and advance to the upper tier, some concessions may need to be made by one of the conferences, and I think the Big 12 is our huckleberry. In terms of pure athletic credentials and revenue ability, UNLV and Memphis have as much of a case as the usual suspects. The Big 12 may need to consider a "t' shaped conference if they are to survive. Inviting UNLV, BYU, Memphis, and Cincinnati may be needed.
|