I'm going to bring a post from the main board here because it gave me an idea on how to actually rate the chances of OU and KU (plus ISU and UT) of joining the Big Ten:
https://csnbbs.com/thread-853306-post-15...id15390553
(Credit to Stugray2 for the post)
Quote:How does a school "qualify" for the Big Ten?
The following criteria:
1) Be a flagship school for your State (California alone has two in UCLA and Cal)
- 1b) Or the equivalent by extremely high academic standards (e.g., Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, Michigan State)
[UT, KU and OU apply here]
- 1c) Or be the equivalent for private schools (e.g., Stanford, Duke, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vandy, USC, maybe a few others)
[Doesn't apply here]
* must be willing to join the CIC and collaborate with the program (UMd officials say they estimate it costs them ~$2m a year)
[KU and ISU would be most eager. OU under Boren would have liked to but I don't know about the new president. UT cares more about the AAU so that's an issue]
2) Have a major athletics program, or the commitment to be at the power level (why Rutgers is running a big deficit)
[All four qualify, although KU and ISU both struggle in football and UT has been down lately]
3) Bring value beyond yourself that makes the B1G more valuable to it's members (can be geographic)
- Note: this is different than the B12 adding WV or the ACC L'ville in what can be described as quick fixes or 5 year plan
[Both UT and OU can each carry a tag along but Big Ten may not accept a second state school for each. So KU and ISU have a shot. ISU and probably KU don't have enough value individually, so need either UT or OU to carry them forward]
4) Your leadership get along with B1G leaders
[If Boren had stayed healthy we'd have a more than even chance at getting Oklahoma. Kansas would be anywhere as long as it's a major power conference, so no need to speculate there. Same with Iowa State, although both would prefer sticking with the XII with OU and UT in place. UT is the big question. Can the Big Ten and UT agree on terms that benefit both?]
5) Make sense both ways a permanent member for the next 100 years.
- things like not being an outlier, or not a great culture fit (meaning you need to be like at least a few other current schools)
the California schools would be outliers, so you can ignore that concept
[While Texas is a solid red state you could argue that Austin would feel at home culturally, with migration from the North and the West. Oklahoma, with former Big 8 ties, may be more amenable to playing northern programs. They just finished a series with Ohio State and are reviving the Nebraska series in a few years. Kansas basketball would love playing more games in Chicago, not so much in the East Coast unless it's at Madison Square Garden]
- as a rule the school school not be at or near the bottom academically, although it's a sliding scale with athletics weight
so FSU or VT could get on the list (not Oklahoma State, Clemson, Texas Tech, K State, West Virginia)
[OU has value that helps overcome its academic deficit, while the other three are already in the AAU]
6) No choice that would trigger and SEC vs B1G war (so Missouri is never joining the B1G, Maryland is never joining the SEC)
[Huge question mark with the SEC already in Texas. Assuming they can keep the RRR series, would playing Big Ten programs help the UT program as a whole or would the academic association overcome the sports issue? The SEC might look into Kansas to enhance their basketball profile but would be an awkward fit for Kansas. Very little chance Iowa State goes to a power conference other than the XII or B1G. So it may come down to what OU decides what the best path will be. That's their 100-year decision]
That's how I see it for the time being. We'll have an answer, sooner or later, as the Big XII Grant of Rights nears its end.