Oklahoma State or Texas tech aren't joining the pac 12 solo. If OU and Texas require it than got to think the pac 12 would gladly accept the package. I mean the pac 12 has Oreg State and Wash State not to mention the Arizona school's, no offense those school's aren't that big of a deal in the academic world for the pac 12 to turn around and be snobby.

(02-11-2017 01:01 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Oklahoma State or Texas tech aren't joining the pac 12 solo. If OU and Texas require it than got to think the pac 12 would gladly accept the package. I mean the pac 12 has Oreg State and Wash State not to mention the Arizona school's, no offense those school's aren't that big of a deal in the academic world for the pac 12 to turn around and be snobby.

IMHO, the PAC is the most top heavy conference. USC, Cal, UCLA, Stanford, and Washington are all elite schools in my mind. The other half of the PAC is significantly below those 5. There really isn't a strong bridge between the two ends of the conference, at least not in my mind. That's why I think that the PAC would be more open to overlooking academics than most people think.

(02-10-2017 05:12 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  You don't add a bottom school academically. Fans of weak academic schools look at a conference and say "we are almost as good as your worst, so take us." But Presidents & Chancellors look for school well above their worst, closer to the middle if they must, at the top preferably; new schools must upgrade the research and academic level of the conference.

No public school that has not achieved Carnegie R1 Research University category can even hope to be offered membership to another conference (exception is probably Alabama, but they are not going anywhere, so you can't test that). It is even hard for a private school, although highly selective privates can overcome a lower research rating; witness TCU, Baylor, and perhaps down the road BYU (I don't include Wake Forest, as they are an "ancient" legacy member of the ACC, who know they won the lottery).

Make your case all you want to fans, Boise State and San Diego State fans do that all the time, but you are not going to get anywhere with the UW and UC Chancellors, nor the Presidents of Stanford and USC. They are the ones that count. Nobody in the Pac-12 academia would ever leave a leadership position for a similar one at Oklahoma State. And that in fact is probably the best question to ask when looking whether power conference Presidents and Chancellor would consider a school, how many of them would consider the same post at your school? If you are Rice or Tulane the answer is a bunch of B12 leaders would jump at it. If you are Memphis or ECU the answer is no, and that explains those cuts by the B12. When you look at the P12, they see 4 B12 schools of some status (TCU perhaps a "think about it"): KU, ISU, OU, Texas. Same for the B1G, ACC and SEC.

Oklahoma State is not going anywhere, and they wont get any offers.

"Probably?" Alabama. You just discredited anything else you posted.

(02-11-2017 01:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 01:01 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Oklahoma State or Texas tech aren't joining the pac 12 solo. If OU and Texas require it than got to think the pac 12 would gladly accept the package. I mean the pac 12 has Oreg State and Wash State not to mention the Arizona school's, no offense those school's aren't that big of a deal in the academic world for the pac 12 to turn around and be snobby.

IMHO, the PAC is the most top heavy conference. USC, Cal, UCLA, Stanford, and Washington are all elite schools in my mind. The other half of the PAC is significantly below those 5. There really isn't a strong bridge between the two ends of the conference, at least not in my mind. That's why I think that the PAC would be more open to overlooking academics than most people think.

Colorado is very highly rated as well. They are #34 in ARWU, ahead of USC (#49). But there is a big drop after those top 6.

(02-11-2017 02:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 01:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 01:01 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Oklahoma State or Texas tech aren't joining the pac 12 solo. If OU and Texas require it than got to think the pac 12 would gladly accept the package. I mean the pac 12 has Oreg State and Wash State not to mention the Arizona school's, no offense those school's aren't that big of a deal in the academic world for the pac 12 to turn around and be snobby.

IMHO, the PAC is the most top heavy conference. USC, Cal, UCLA, Stanford, and Washington are all elite schools in my mind. The other half of the PAC is significantly below those 5. There really isn't a strong bridge between the two ends of the conference, at least not in my mind. That's why I think that the PAC would be more open to overlooking academics than most people think.

Colorado is very highly rated as well. They are #34 in ARWU, ahead of USC (#49). But there is a big drop after those top 6.

That's driven by research, not actual academics.

I personally don't think that research is even mildly applicable, but even if I'm wrong, there's still a difference between the other 5, which are complete packages, and CU, which happens to place a heavy emphasis on hard sciences.

Speaking of Texas...just saw them on TV. They are like 10-15 or whatever. How can that school suck this bad in sports? lol their athletic revenue is astronomical. SMH

also, speaking of the B12,

Does the Baylor basketball team rape girls too or is that just the football team?

(02-11-2017 04:58 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Speaking of Texas...just saw them on TV. They are like 10-15 or whatever. How can that school suck this bad in sports? lol their athletic revenue is astronomical. SMH

also, speaking of the B12,

Does the Baylor basketball team rape girls too or is that just the football team?

Well the Beatles said "Money Can't Buy Me Love", perhaps it can't buy them wins either! But seriously, I think it says more about the need to clean house in the Athletic Department and to make sure the new folks there are on the same page with the Boosters and Administration. It seems to me that what Texas lacks is a uniformed vision of what they want, and how to get there.

(02-11-2017 04:58 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Speaking of Texas...just saw them on TV. They are like 10-15 or whatever. How can that school suck this bad in sports? lol their athletic revenue is astronomical. SMH

also, speaking of the B12,

Does the Baylor basketball team rape girls too or is that just the football team?

Baylor Basketball: Google Dave Bliss Baylor scandal. About 15 years ago, one of the transfers Bliss brought with him from New Mexico- Patrick dennahy I think--was murdered by one of his teammates. Bliss tried covering it up. Huge scandal. Like Briles later, Bliss, a once very good coach at SMU in the SWC and then New Mexico during the Old WAC days, came to Baylor and ended up never coaching college again.

Cheers!

(02-11-2017 01:01 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Oklahoma State or Texas tech aren't joining the pac 12 solo. If OU and Texas require it than got to think the pac 12 would gladly accept the package. I mean the pac 12 has Oreg State and Wash State not to mention the Arizona school's, no offense those school's aren't that big of a deal in the academic world for the pac 12 to turn around and be snobby.

Arizona and ASU are stronger research institutions than any other BigXII school not named Texas.

(02-11-2017 01:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  IMHO, the PAC is the most top heavy conference. USC, Cal, UCLA, Stanford, and Washington are all elite schools in my mind. The other half of the PAC is significantly below those 5. There really isn't a strong bridge between the two ends of the conference, at least not in my mind. That's why I think that the PAC would be more open to overlooking academics than most people think.

This makes absolutely no sense. Because the PAC only has one school in the 51-100 range (Utah), to better "bridge the gap" to the 101-150 schools (AZ, ASU, Ore St), they might as well invite a bunch of schools in the 500+ range.

(02-11-2017 04:03 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  not actual academics.

There is no such thing as "actual" academics.


Academics means whatever you want it to mean, to best support your agenda.

Research is a very big deal to the PAC no matter what you may think.

I'm not to big on the ARWU rankings, I stick to some of the basics. Carnegie classification system and the R&D numbers of the universities.

When you dive into that information you find that every school in the PAC and the B1G are tier 1 research universities (R1). You also see that every school in those two conferences (except Oregon) are in the top 100 when it comes to their R&D expenditures. National science foundation for R&D reference.

IMO this is not a coincidence, these conferences take pride in their research and in future expansion they will do everything they can to get schools that fit that profile.

When we look at the BIGXII under this lens, I think we get a pretty clear picture of what schools they will consider 1st, what schools will need partners, and 2 schools who won't be considered at all.

Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Iowa State are all R1 universities with top 100 R&D Budgets. They will be considered 1st

Kansas state, West Virginia, and Texas Tech are R1 schools and just outside of the top 100 in R&D expenditures. While Oklahoma state is #134 on the R&D list I used and an R2 university. These 4 schools obviously need one of the big boys to come with them.

I do not believe either Baylor or TCU will be considered, both are R2 universities. Baylor is #247 and TCU is #344 in R&D expenditures. They don't fit the profile of either conference. There is still a possibility that the SEC could make a run at one of these schools but they don't even necessarily meet the SEC'S standards. Only Alabama, Miss st, and Auburn are R2 universities and the lowest in R&D is Ole Miss at #147.

There are obviously a lot of metrics we can use to make a case for and against universities in the expansion game. These are two that I like.

(02-12-2017 10:36 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 04:03 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  not actual academics.

There is no such thing as "actual" academics.


Academics means whatever you want it to mean, to best support your agenda.

I think academics is best thought of as the generation and dissemination of knowledge. The generation of knowledge is research. The dissemination of knowledge is education.

To be a strong academic school, a school must do both. The BigXII includes several strong educational programs which lack the research component to be considered strong academically.

Sure, sounds fine in theory. In practice, it's impossible to measure or prove anything about how well any particular institution "educates" a particular group of individuals.

Truth be told, you can probably get a better "education" at smaller schools that have less of a focus on research. At research schools, the research is what matters. Teaching is just a way for a prof to get a salary for nine months of the year.

(02-11-2017 05:14 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 04:58 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Speaking of Texas...just saw them on TV. They are like 10-15 or whatever. How can that school suck this bad in sports? lol their athletic revenue is astronomical. SMH

also, speaking of the B12,

Does the Baylor basketball team rape girls too or is that just the football team?

Baylor Basketball: Google Dave Bliss Baylor scandal. About 15 years ago, one of the transfers Bliss brought with him from New Mexico- Patrick dennahy I think--was murdered by one of his teammates. Bliss tried covering it up. Huge scandal. Like Briles later, Bliss, a once very good coach at SMU in the SWC and then New Mexico during the Old WAC days, came to Baylor and ended up never coaching college again.

Cheers!

Coaching career (HC unless noted)
1966-1967 Cornell (Freshmen)
1967-1969 Army (Asst.)
1969-1971 Cornell (Asst.)
1971-1975 Indiana (Asst.)
1975–1980 Oklahoma
1980–1988 SMU
1988–1999 New Mexico
1999–2003 Baylor
2005–2006 Dakota Wizards
2010–2015 Allen Academy
2015–present Southwestern Christian

(02-12-2017 06:36 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 05:14 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 04:58 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Speaking of Texas...just saw them on TV. They are like 10-15 or whatever. How can that school suck this bad in sports? lol their athletic revenue is astronomical. SMH

also, speaking of the B12,

Does the Baylor basketball team rape girls too or is that just the football team?

Baylor Basketball: Google Dave Bliss Baylor scandal. About 15 years ago, one of the transfers Bliss brought with him from New Mexico- Patrick dennahy I think--was murdered by one of his teammates. Bliss tried covering it up. Huge scandal. Like Briles later, Bliss, a once very good coach at SMU in the SWC and then New Mexico during the Old WAC days, came to Baylor and ended up never coaching college again.

Cheers!

Coaching career (HC unless noted)
1966-1967 Cornell (Freshmen)
1967-1969 Army (Asst.)
1969-1971 Cornell (Asst.)
1971-1975 Indiana (Asst.)
1975–1980 Oklahoma
1980–1988 SMU
1988–1999 New Mexico
1999–2003 Baylor
2005–2006 Dakota Wizards
2010–2015 Allen Academy
2015–present Southwestern Christian

I should have qualified it. But you are correct, technically. I don't know how an online, for-profit entity like that counts, but you got me. Are they NAIA even? They don't show up as a D-1, D-2 or D-3 school in the NCAA standings.
Cheers!

The Pac-12 and B1G would Texas standing alone. Oklahoma would require one of those partners in the top 100 research schools (KU or ISU). After you trip those three schools, the rest are stuck. Texas could possibly dictate Tech, but that is the only 2nd group outside the top 100 who could get a lifeline.

I see 5 schools stuck in every scenario, and 1-3 more likely stuck. Is Iowa State or Kansas worth enough to consider without Oklahoma or Texas going with them?

It should be remembered when Oklahoma pitched to the B1G back in 2011, as a group of 5, they listed Nebraska, Iowa State, Texas A&M, and Kansas as the other four. They are all your first tier R1 and top 100 research schools. Further in 2011 all except Oklahoma were AAU members. I think that should put to bed any notion that Oklahoma is glued to Oklahoma State. Note, another way to look at it is the rumor was a fabricated one, a trial balloon for the other conferences knowing that Nebraska joined the B1G, Texas A&M the SEC, and embedded in the rumor was Missouri having already decided to maneuver for the SEC and Texas not coming with Oklahoma. When you filter that, the rumor says OU would be willing to go to another conference, and it's acceptable to select KU or ISU as their partner instead of OSU. Personally I think that is what that story is really about.

(02-12-2017 07:00 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 06:36 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 05:14 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 04:58 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Speaking of Texas...just saw them on TV. They are like 10-15 or whatever. How can that school suck this bad in sports? lol their athletic revenue is astronomical. SMH

also, speaking of the B12,

Does the Baylor basketball team rape girls too or is that just the football team?

Baylor Basketball: Google Dave Bliss Baylor scandal. About 15 years ago, one of the transfers Bliss brought with him from New Mexico- Patrick dennahy I think--was murdered by one of his teammates. Bliss tried covering it up. Huge scandal. Like Briles later, Bliss, a once very good coach at SMU in the SWC and then New Mexico during the Old WAC days, came to Baylor and ended up never coaching college again.

Cheers!

Coaching career (HC unless noted)
1966-1967 Cornell (Freshmen)
1967-1969 Army (Asst.)
1969-1971 Cornell (Asst.)
1971-1975 Indiana (Asst.)
1975–1980 Oklahoma
1980–1988 SMU
1988–1999 New Mexico
1999–2003 Baylor
2005–2006 Dakota Wizards
2010–2015 Allen Academy
2015–present Southwestern Christian

I should have qualified it. But you are correct, technically. I don't know how an online, for-profit entity like that counts, but you got me. Are they NAIA even? They don't show up as a D-1, D-2 or D-3 school in the NCAA standings.
Cheers!

Wasn't so much pointing out that you were wrong as he isn't coaching at this level anymore but still shocking that he is working with kids again.

Even more shocking is him being employed in the d-league just a couple years after all this came out.

(02-11-2017 12:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas will never go to the Big 10 because they won't abandon their Lone Star identity to A&M, which during such a move would be playing more games locally and would begin to have more sway in state than they even have currently which undermines the home status of UT.

this makes no sense ...

TREE WITH ROOTS EXPOSED

(02-11-2017 12:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think their choices right now would be as follows:
1. Keep their fiefdom together if possible.
2. Negotiate a move in force to the PAC.
3. Join old rivals in the SEC.
4. Follow the tradition of dishonored Samurai.
5. Join the Big 10.

hate to break it to you pal ...
but hip austin has nothing in common with rural sec stalwarts ...
a cultural mismatch ...

WHISTLING DIXIE

you never mention the ACC ...
even though former texas athletic director deloss dodds is on record ...
"re expansion if we ever do anything go east because it's better for kids"

CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE