The policy is against religious-affiliated schools. I doubt the flavor or degree of religious affiliation is relevant.

Money is relevant. They would likely make a hypocritical exception for Notre Dame, for example.

(01-24-2015 02:58 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 02:15 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 03:08 AM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  Love it!


Rice in the big time! Suggest an adjustment to the divisions. Move Northwestern East and Illinois West so that each division has an AAU private school.

Thanks, exowlswimmer. Your suggestion was how I originally had the divisions in my original post on page 2 of the thread as per JRsec's post:

(01-22-2015 04:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the Big 10 lands Kansas and Texas and wants Oklahoma, in spite of their academic deficiencies, who else would they ask? Rice would compliment not only Texas but Northwestern.

You have Illinois in both East and West. Obviously, you can't have them in both divisions. I suggested Illinois in the East and Northwestern in the West because: 1) Illinois is very close to Purdue and Indiana and would ease the football strength in the East; 2) Chicago and Houston are hubs and will help travel for the schools in the West.

I thought they just really liked playing football! OOPS! I see now where I goofed up. the coding is a real pain to get all those cool little icons in there. Thanks for helping me figure it out.

Here is the corrected version:

BiG
East Division
Indiana
Illinois/Northwestern
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Rutgers

West Division
Illinois/Northwestern
Iowa
Kansas/Oklahoma State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Rice/Kansas
Texas
Wisconsin

(01-24-2015 03:14 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  The policy is against religious-affiliated schools. I doubt the flavor or degree of religious affiliation is relevant.

Money is relevant. They would likely make a hypocritical exception for Notre Dame, for example.

Once again the policy of the PAC is not against religious affiliated schools. It is against schools that impose religious dogma over, or at the expense of, academic freedom. B.Y.U. has had a history of that. Baylor has in the past prevented some student activities based upon religious beliefs. T.C.U. intentionally divorced religious norms from undergraduate and post graduate work with the exception of seminary. If Emory University had a great football program it would certainly meet PAC guidelines and yet it has a seminary, as does Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. The PAC is not anti religion. They are pro academic freedom.

What is the actual wording of their policy? I can't find a text of it on the internet.

Sounds like it's sufficiently nonspecific in wording to be interpreted in any way that is most expedient, while sounding noble.

(01-24-2015 07:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  What is the actual wording of their policy? I can't find a text of it on the internet.

Sounds like it's sufficiently nonspecific in wording to be interpreted in any way that is most expedient, while sounding noble.

You've just defined every NCAA, NFL pro sports league, and every politician!

(01-24-2015 03:33 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 02:58 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 02:15 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 03:08 AM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  Love it!


Rice in the big time! Suggest an adjustment to the divisions. Move Northwestern East and Illinois West so that each division has an AAU private school.

Thanks, exowlswimmer. Your suggestion was how I originally had the divisions in my original post on page 2 of the thread as per JRsec's post:

(01-22-2015 04:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the Big 10 lands Kansas and Texas and wants Oklahoma, in spite of their academic deficiencies, who else would they ask? Rice would compliment not only Texas but Northwestern.

You have Illinois in both East and West. Obviously, you can't have them in both divisions. I suggested Illinois in the East and Northwestern in the West because: 1) Illinois is very close to Purdue and Indiana and would ease the football strength in the East; 2) Chicago and Houston are hubs and will help travel for the schools in the West.

I thought they just really liked playing football! OOPS! I see now where I goofed up. the coding is a real pain to get all those cool little icons in there. Thanks for helping me figure it out.

Here is the corrected version:

BiG
East Division
Indiana
Illinois/Northwestern
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Rutgers

West Division
Illinois/Northwestern
Iowa
Kansas/Oklahoma State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Rice/Kansas
Texas
Wisconsin

Since this is just shooting the you-know-what it would be nice to have a private school in the East (say, Duke), the midwest (Northwestern) and the Southwest/South (Rice).

PSU, RU, UMD, UVA, Duke

OSU, UM, MSU, IU, Purdue

Northwestern, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois

Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Rice

(01-24-2015 07:38 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 07:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  What is the actual wording of their policy? I can't find a text of it on the internet.

Sounds like it's sufficiently nonspecific in wording to be interpreted in any way that is most expedient, while sounding noble.

You've just defined every NCAA, NFL pro sports league, and every politician!

We have a winner!!!

(01-24-2015 07:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  What is the actual wording of their policy? I can't find a text of it on the internet.

Sounds like it's sufficiently nonspecific in wording to be interpreted in any way that is most expedient, while sounding noble.

I don't know that there is a formal written policy. But conference spokespersons made it quite clear at the time of their last expansion that they would not consider a religious school.

(01-25-2015 01:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 07:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  What is the actual wording of their policy? I can't find a text of it on the internet.

Sounds like it's sufficiently nonspecific in wording to be interpreted in any way that is most expedient, while sounding noble.

I don't know that there is a formal written policy. But conference spokespersons made it quite clear at the time of their last expansion that they would not consider a religious school.

Keep in mind that the only such school in real contention when that was stated was BYU. Making a declarative statement like that is certainly easier under that condition.

I suspect Notre Dame might not get the same pointed response, not that them joining the PAC makes any sense for other reasons.

(01-25-2015 01:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 01:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 07:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  What is the actual wording of their policy? I can't find a text of it on the internet.
Sounds like it's sufficiently nonspecific in wording to be interpreted in any way that is most expedient, while sounding noble.

I don't know that there is a formal written policy. But conference spokespersons made it quite clear at the time of their last expansion that they would not consider a religious school.

Keep in mind that the only such school in real contention when that was stated was BYU. Making a declarative statement like that is certainly easier under that condition.
I suspect Notre Dame might not get the same pointed response, not that them joining the PAC makes any sense for other reasons.

I remember that Baylor was also mentioned at the time in at least one article I read. I don't remember whether that was quoting a spokesperson in response to a specific question, or merely speculation by the author of the article.

I agree regarding ND. I doubt there's any conference in the country that would not repeal or waive any policy that had the effect of keeping ND out. Money talks, after all.

That fact that BYU refuses to play games on Sunday may have an effect. They remain adamant in that stance so far as I know.

(01-25-2015 09:48 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  That fact that BYU refuses to play games on Sunday may have an effect. They remain adamant in that stance so far as I know.

That's my understanding as well.

Here's a link to a 2010 Deseret News article that lays out the BYU conference realignment dynamic in pretty good detail:

Quote:The biggest problem is that Sunday business.

For BYU, Sunday is a day of rest.

For everyone else, it's the first day of the rest of their season, which has kept the Cougars on the fringe of recent discussions about Pac-10 expansion.

...

So is BYU sticking in the Mountain West?

If Sunday play remains an issue for other conferences, yes.

...

"It's not so much the regular season Sunday-play issue; the problem is the conference tournaments," (former BYU AD Val Hale) says.

...

"If ESPN or anyone has its games on Sundays, that would eliminate us, and that's OK," (former BYU AD Glen Tuckett) says. "There was a time when we were kind of in a position to get some concessions. Now, I'm not sure we are with that group. We got concessions with our little group, but they're not making many concessions for us now and they wouldn't have to. But when you get down to it, everyone has a lot of respect for BYU."

Enough respect to change an entire conference schedule for one school?

It appears that time, too, may have passed.

(01-24-2015 02:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 02:19 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  And here is the PAC suggestion from JRsec:

(01-22-2015 06:54 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='11687063' dateline='1421963869']
If the PAC doesn't land the Horns and wants into the Texas market then taking T.C.U., Texas Tech, and a Houston based team makes sense for them if they are to cover the markets within the state. If that's the case the Rice is in a direct competition with the Cougars. All things being equal and the PAC's preference for academic standing that places you guys back into the mix.

PAC
North Division
California
Colorado
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Utah
Washington
Washington State

South Division
Arizona
Arizona State
BYU/Baylor
Rice/Houston
Texas Tech
TCU
UCLA
USC

Won't be BYU and won't be Baylor. Pac-12 is on record as not taking any religious schools.

Right. I would guess the 4th non-Texas slot would be one of OSU, KSU, UNM, or UNLV.

(01-24-2015 09:21 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 03:33 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 02:58 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 02:15 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 03:08 AM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  Love it!


Rice in the big time! Suggest an adjustment to the divisions. Move Northwestern East and Illinois West so that each division has an AAU private school.

Thanks, exowlswimmer. Your suggestion was how I originally had the divisions in my original post on page 2 of the thread as per JRsec's post:

(01-22-2015 04:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the Big 10 lands Kansas and Texas and wants Oklahoma, in spite of their academic deficiencies, who else would they ask? Rice would compliment not only Texas but Northwestern.

You have Illinois in both East and West. Obviously, you can't have them in both divisions. I suggested Illinois in the East and Northwestern in the West because: 1) Illinois is very close to Purdue and Indiana and would ease the football strength in the East; 2) Chicago and Houston are hubs and will help travel for the schools in the West.

I thought they just really liked playing football! OOPS! I see now where I goofed up. the coding is a real pain to get all those cool little icons in there. Thanks for helping me figure it out.

Here is the corrected version:

BiG
East Division
Indiana
Illinois/Northwestern
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Rutgers

West Division
Illinois/Northwestern
Iowa
Kansas/Oklahoma State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Rice/Kansas
Texas
Wisconsin

Since this is just shooting the you-know-what it would be nice to have a private school in the East (say, Duke), the midwest (Northwestern) and the Southwest/South (Rice).

PSU, RU, UMD, UVA, Duke

OSU, UM, MSU, IU, Purdue

Northwestern, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois

Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Rice

This would be a winner for the B1G as the original ten B1G schools would all be in 2 divisions to help maintain rivalries. All the former B8/SWC schools in another and all the BE/ACC schools in the 4th.

Oklahoma State has no shot at B1G membership for the opposite reasons Rice has a shot: lack of AAU membership and mediocre, or worse, academic ratings. If Texas can't get TTU into the B1G (remember the tOSU's president Gee's Tech problem) then no way OU (who has no AAU membership itself) gets OSU into the B1G. Lack of good B1G candidates outside of KU, OU, and UT are the reason Rice has a dark horse B1G shot as the 4th.

There are some things which perhaps are not being appreciated properly in this discussion:

The most likely P5 conference to be raided is not the Big XII but the ACC. That's because, unlike the other P5 conferences, men's basketball is a significant rival to football's financial and emotional hegemony. Because football is the main driver in conference re-alignment, at some point schools like Clemson and Florida State, and perhaps Miami and Virginia Tech, may decide the grass is greener somewhere else and let the Carolina schools, Louisville and the others play basketball among themselves. It's kind of like the situation the old Big East faced, although not as bad. The Big XII doesn't have that pressure on it, except...

There are only two places Texas football will ever be: the Big XII or independent, thanks to the Longhorn Network. Texas is perhaps the biggest revenue producer in college sports, but the existence of the Longhorn Network means that a chunk of that revenue is off-limits to another conference (there's no way Texas voluntarily would reduce its share of revenue by giving some away to a conference). Then again, should Texas indeed go independent, the Big XII loses its biggest draw and suddenly looks a lot more vulnerable.

(01-24-2015 02:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Won't be BYU and won't be Baylor. Pac-12 is on record as not taking any religious schools.

I guess Southern Cal doesn't count (and a better way to phrase it would be "church schools").

I'm with you on the subject of signature wins. They mean little in isolation (UAB beat LSU in 2000, and look what happened to them!), and if Rice can routinely win or contend for a Conference USA title, the signature wins will come with that. Reading between the lines, I think Bailiff and the administration are of this belief as well.

(01-26-2015 01:55 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  There are some things which perhaps are not being appreciated properly in this discussion:
The most likely P5 conference to be raided is not the Big XII but the ACC. That's because, unlike the other P5 conferences, men's basketball is a significant rival to football's financial and emotional hegemony. Because football is the main driver in conference re-alignment, at some point schools like Clemson and Florida State, and perhaps Miami and Virginia Tech, may decide the grass is greener somewhere else and let the Carolina schools, Louisville and the others play basketball among themselves. It's kind of like the situation the old Big East faced, although not as bad. The Big XII doesn't have that pressure on it, except...
There are only two places Texas football will ever be: the Big XII or independent, thanks to the Longhorn Network. Texas is perhaps the biggest revenue producer in college sports, but the existence of the Longhorn Network means that a chunk of that revenue is off-limits to another conference (there's no way Texas voluntarily would reduce its share of revenue by giving some away to a conference). Then again, should Texas indeed go independent, the Big XII loses its biggest draw and suddenly looks a lot more vulnerable.

(01-24-2015 02:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Won't be BYU and won't be Baylor. Pac-12 is on record as not taking any religious schools.

I guess Southern Cal doesn't count (and a better way to phrase it would be "church schools").
I'm with you on the subject of signature wins. They mean little in isolation (UAB beat LSU in 2000, and look what happened to them!), and if Rice can routinely win or contend for a Conference USA title, the signature wins will come with that. Reading between the lines, I think Bailiff and the administration are of this belief as well.

SC cut its ties with the Methodists in 1952. Checking out the date, I ran across one other interesting detail--SC once had an ag school. And of course, there are a lot of people who do not realize (probably because of the name) that SC is a private school.

Agree with the rest, including the "church school" terminology adjustment. One implication is that basketball improvement is really a huge key for us, because there is certainly a case where basketball could punch our ticket to the ACC--if we got to be Gonzaga. Of course, how desirable that ACC would be is another question.

I thought the ACC had adopted some kind of poison pill putting really tough exit fees to anyone that wanted to leave.

(01-26-2015 07:55 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I thought the ACC had adopted some kind of poison pill putting really tough exit fees to anyone that wanted to leave.

They have, but in the right situation such things can be handled.

(01-26-2015 08:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 07:55 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I thought the ACC had adopted some kind of poison pill putting really tough exit fees to anyone that wanted to leave.

They have, but in the right situation such things can be handled.

Sort of "money talks and Miami walks".

(01-26-2015 01:55 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  I'm with you on the subject of signature wins. They mean little in isolation (UAB beat LSU in 2000, and look what happened to them!), and if Rice can routinely win or contend for a Conference USA title, the signature wins will come with that. Reading between the lines, I think Bailiff and the administration are of this belief as well.

Jonathan, I think you have misread the tea leaves. Bailiff may believe this, but Dr. K certainly does not, and I very much doubt the BOT does. Consistently contending for and winning the CUSA title in and of itself does very little for us on a national basis since no one will notice or care. As others have said, we need BOTH to continue winning and notch some periodic signature wins. And I do know that Dr. K's perception of a signature win is very similar to mine as he's stated such publically on numerous occasions. A signature win is an upset of a perceived national power that garners national attention.