(03-12-2020 05:59 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Texas' idea of academic pals are AAU, top 50 NSF research institutions, and schools like Duke, NW, and Stanford.
Texas' idea of football pals are different

Well said. This can be said for most schools, but there is a difference between the "University of Texas" and the "Texas Longhorns". One represents the other, but they are not exactly the same.

The interests of a administrator, faculty member, student, or alum are partially different from those of a fan. In the case of a state university, all of the citizens ideally benefit, but those with a direct investment in the school (employees, students, alumni) benefit more from the increased academic stature of the university. On the other hand, a t-shirt fan with no other connection to the school is more likely to view things differently, and ignore the academic component and relationship.

This is how a school such as Texas can view Cal, Stanford, and Michigan as academic peers, but their fans are more invested in relationships with Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, and OU.

There is a poster on the OU board that is very pro-B1G, and claims relationships with high-powered people at OU. I respect his opinion, though I prefer the SEC. He supports membership in the B1G because of the research component, and how associations with B1G schools will increase research levels and ratings for OU, therefore benefiting the state. He is an alum of OU, and believes that membership in the B1G would increase the value of his degree.

The OU athletic department, on the other hand, is a much better fit in the SEC. The focuses of the athletic departments are very similar, especially in regard to football and non-revenue sports. Football games against SEC schools would be a much better sell to the OU fan base than those against B1G schools. In this case, as well, there is a difference between the interests of the "University of Oklahoma" and the "Oklahoma Sooners". One represents the other, but is not exactly the same.

(03-13-2020 09:42 AM)johnintx Wrote:  The interests of a administrator, faculty member, student, or alum are partially different from those of a fan. In the case of a state university, all of the citizens ideally benefit, but those with a direct investment in the school (employees, students, alumni) benefit more from the increased academic stature of the university. On the other hand, a t-shirt fan with no other connection to the school is more likely to view things differently, and ignore the academic component and relationship.

This is how a school such as Texas can view Cal, Stanford, and Michigan as academic peers, but their fans are more invested in relationships with Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, and OU.

OU, yes. No self respecting Texas Longhorn fan cares about Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech. They're all little brothers. I would think A&M is the real in state rival although it's been years since they left for the SEC.

(03-13-2020 11:02 AM)schmolik Wrote:  OU, yes. No self respecting Texas Longhorn fan cares about Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech. They're all little brothers. I would think A&M is the real in state rival although it's been years since they left for the SEC.

They care. They may not view them as equals, but they care. Baylor has more recent success in football, and Tech played for a NC in men's basketball last year. That doesn't play well in Austin. Still, at this time, UT would rather play the in-state schools than leave the region. This is subject to change.

The UT-A&M relationship is more complicated. It's worthy of its own message board thread, and really a book. Yes, they're rivals. Right now, they'd rather live without each other. But, they are starting to play each other in sports outside of football.

(03-12-2020 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 08:21 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  XLance—the West Coast has a ton of people but the PAC 12 can’t compete financially with the SEC and Big Ten. A Texlahoma marriage to the PAC 12 is highly unlikely because the money isn’t there and I hazard to say the Central Time Zone schools will take issue with the late starts.

If Texas and/or Oklahoma don’t exact an even more lopsided deal to keep them in the Big 12 they will head to either the SEC or Big 10 where they will have boatloads of money.

On a separate note, I don’t buy the argument that academics are a deal breaking point on contention for Texas to the SEC:

9 member SWC: 3 AAU
12 member Big 12: 7 AAU
10 member Big 12: 3 AAU
16 member SEC: 5 AAU

The SWC also had SMU, Baylor and TCU who weren't AAU but who were strong schools. The original Big 12 had 7 of 12 AAU members.

Probably the unspoken issue is that WVU, KSU, OSU may have the same academics as Alabama, LSU and Ole Miss, but don't have the same resources. And there really is a gap between the SEC East and SEC West. 4 of the top 5 SEC schools are in the East and arguably, the bottom 5 are in the west.

In any event, it doesn't matter whether there is an academic difference or not. What matters is that the Texas administration, mostly from UC, Ivy League and Big 10 schools, believes there is.

SMU was one of the schools that were approached to form a Southern Ivy Conference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ivy


The Southern Ivy was the brainchild of Harvie Branscomb, the Vanderbilt chancellor.


"The effort to create a Southern athletic conference originated during the 1950s. Harvie Branscomb, then-chancellor at Vanderbilt University, originally attempted to establish a rivalry between Vanderbilt and traditional Ivy League schools to foster relationships with academically-oriented schools. The school followed through on this effort and played a game against Yale in October 1948. However, after the Vanderbilt Commodores shut out the Yale Bulldogs, 35-0, Yale said they no longer wanted to play Vanderbilt. This caused Branscomb to call a meeting with the presidents of other Southern private universities in the late 1950s—Southern Methodist University (SMU), Emory University, Rice University, Duke University and Tulane University— where Branscomb suggested they try to establish a new sports conference where small, academically-inclined private schools could compete.

In the early 1960s, the idea for the "Magnolia Conference" gained popularity. In 1963, Tulane was frustrated by its level of competition within the Southeastern Conference since many of the schools had lower academic expectations for football players. They considered withdrawing from the SEC to compete with schools with similar aims.[4] According to the Rice Thresher, the era was a time when "the academic disparity between show-me-the-money schools and the schools less inclined to compromise academics was just beginning to become more evident."[citation needed] The "Magnolia Conference" had the vision to "maintain high-end Division I budgets and schedules, while avoiding some of the crasser extremes of the big business of college sports".[citation needed] However, this "Southern Ivy League" never got off the ground. Duke did not want to give up its rivalry with the University of North Carolina, and SMU and Rice were not willing to give up their shares of revenue flowing from the then-lucrative Cotton Bowl Classic because of its tie-in with the Southwest Conference."

(03-12-2020 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 08:21 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  XLance—the West Coast has a ton of people but the PAC 12 can’t compete financially with the SEC and Big Ten. A Texlahoma marriage to the PAC 12 is highly unlikely because the money isn’t there and I hazard to say the Central Time Zone schools will take issue with the late starts.

If Texas and/or Oklahoma don’t exact an even more lopsided deal to keep them in the Big 12 they will head to either the SEC or Big 10 where they will have boatloads of money.

On a separate note, I don’t buy the argument that academics are a deal breaking point on contention for Texas to the SEC:

9 member SWC: 3 AAU
12 member Big 12: 7 AAU
10 member Big 12: 3 AAU
16 member SEC: 5 AAU

The SWC also had SMU, Baylor and TCU who weren't AAU but who were strong schools. The original Big 12 had 7 of 12 AAU members.

Probably the unspoken issue is that WVU, KSU, OSU may have the same academics as Alabama, LSU and Ole Miss, but don't have the same resources. And there really is a gap between the SEC East and SEC West. 4 of the top 5 SEC schools are in the East and arguably, the bottom 5 are in the west.

In any event, it doesn't matter whether there is an academic difference or not. What matters is that the Texas administration, mostly from UC, Ivy League and Big 10 schools, believes there is.

There are a couple of issues.

1. WVU, KSU, and OSU are all in a tier more or less below virtually every SEC school. The SEC schools are flagships and they do have more resources at their disposal, fair enough, but they are also not on an even plane with several Big 12 schools. That's not a knock on Big 12 members as I think the idea of administrators worrying about these designations in the context of athletic affiliation is mostly silly anyway.

2. As JR has said, any deficiencies found within whatever conference Texas finds itself have always been overlooked. There have been some very nice schools that have passed through the doors of the Big 12 as you have mentioned and there are several high quality ones in the fold now, but it's not a who's who and never has been.

For example, the relationship with Rice, an elite school, was apparently not valuable enough to maintain when moving from the SWC into the Big 12. That's significant as it would point directly to a vastly different criteria being employed when deciding conference mates. Surely Rice makes the cut if we're concerned about academic quality. The people of UT have been known to make fun of Houston for being a community college basically, but as the SWC was breaking up let's consider we have Rice on the outside looking in all the same...no distinction was offered between the two. What they have in common is clearly a lack of athletic gravitas and the funding to be competitive.

Or let's look at who Texas approved when the 4 flagships left 10 years ago...West Virginia and TCU. Again, this is not a knock on anyone, but these are not elite schools while other more prestigious schools were clearly available....Tulane, Colorado State, Tulsa, BYU, or the aforementioned Rice. Even Cincinnati is well regarded if we're looking at crossing into the Eastern US. It's not even a matter of choosing superior academics when all else is equal. I mean, Morgantown is a heck of a long distance to go to find a school that Texas was simply willing to "settle" for in a less than ideal situation.

What West Virginia and TCU had in common were quality athletic departments that could generate revenue for the Big 12. The others had better academics, but a lesser ability to deliver TV revenue.

Bullet, I'm not arguing with you here. I don't doubt at all that UT administrators have the perspective you suggest. I'm just taking the opportunity to say they are utterly disingenuous. If they were truly concerned about the best combination of athletic and academic success they could find then they'd be banging the door down to get into the Big Ten. They aren't doing that and most likely never will.

Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

Personally, I don't care if Texas ever joins the SEC. We don't need them although I would certainly welcome them because I'm not a goofus and recognize the value they bring. With that said, I also wouldn't be shocked if they stuck their nose up at the SEC every opportunity they were given.

This is perhaps self-indulgent, but my only point is that I bristle at arrogance when it's combined with a facade. The leaders of UT-Austin are doing nothing but keeping up appearances. They are certainly free to do that from now until Kingdom come, but I probably won't miss an opportunity to call them out for their nonsense. Not that anyone cares what I think or should for that matter, but I was bored.

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

There is a difference in the impact of travel when you compare Texas joining the Pac-12 or Big Ten with 4 other central time zone schools that are in Texas or Oklahoma versus joining a relatively distant league with no other local schools where the closest conference mate would be 800 miles away and every other school would be over 1,000 miles away.

The issue with the Big Ten is that the Big Ten would never invite 3 to 5 "local buddies" of UT to join the Big Ten with them, whereas the Pac would, and the SEC doesn't need to because of the relative closeness of TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas.

(03-13-2020 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

There is a difference in the impact of travel when you compare Texas joining the Pac-12 or Big Ten with 4 other central time zone schools that are in Texas or Oklahoma versus joining a relatively distant league with no other local schools where the closest conference mate would be 800 miles away and every other school would be over 1,000 miles away.

The issue with the Big Ten is that the Big Ten would never invite 3 to 5 "local buddies" of UT to join the Big Ten with them, whereas the Pac would, and the SEC doesn't need to because of the relative closeness of TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas.

The Pac-12 would be the most likely of the three conferences since they are the least economically valuable, have the most to gain, and have the least bargaining power. But if the Pac-12 still has to have a unanimous vote for invites and all it takes is Stanford to block someone, that's not guaranteed either.

(03-13-2020 12:14 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 11:02 AM)schmolik Wrote:  OU, yes. No self respecting Texas Longhorn fan cares about Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech. They're all little brothers. I would think A&M is the real in state rival although it's been years since they left for the SEC.

They care. They may not view them as equals, but they care. Baylor has more recent success in football, and Tech played for a NC in men's basketball last year. That doesn't play well in Austin. Still, at this time, UT would rather play the in-state schools than leave the region. This is subject to change.

The UT-A&M relationship is more complicated. It's worthy of its own message board thread, and really a book. Yes, they're rivals. Right now, they'd rather live without each other. But, they are starting to play each other in sports outside of football.

If Texas would rather play a bunch of second rate Texas schools than A&M then it sounds like a scaredy cat to me.

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 08:21 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  XLance—the West Coast has a ton of people but the PAC 12 can’t compete financially with the SEC and Big Ten. A Texlahoma marriage to the PAC 12 is highly unlikely because the money isn’t there and I hazard to say the Central Time Zone schools will take issue with the late starts.

If Texas and/or Oklahoma don’t exact an even more lopsided deal to keep them in the Big 12 they will head to either the SEC or Big 10 where they will have boatloads of money.

On a separate note, I don’t buy the argument that academics are a deal breaking point on contention for Texas to the SEC:

9 member SWC: 3 AAU
12 member Big 12: 7 AAU
10 member Big 12: 3 AAU
16 member SEC: 5 AAU

The SWC also had SMU, Baylor and TCU who weren't AAU but who were strong schools. The original Big 12 had 7 of 12 AAU members.

Probably the unspoken issue is that WVU, KSU, OSU may have the same academics as Alabama, LSU and Ole Miss, but don't have the same resources. And there really is a gap between the SEC East and SEC West. 4 of the top 5 SEC schools are in the East and arguably, the bottom 5 are in the west.

In any event, it doesn't matter whether there is an academic difference or not. What matters is that the Texas administration, mostly from UC, Ivy League and Big 10 schools, believes there is.

There are a couple of issues.

1. WVU, KSU, and OSU are all in a tier more or less below virtually every SEC school. The SEC schools are flagships and they do have more resources at their disposal, fair enough, but they are also not on an even plane with several Big 12 schools. That's not a knock on Big 12 members as I think the idea of administrators worrying about these designations in the context of athletic affiliation is mostly silly anyway.

2. As JR has said, any deficiencies found within whatever conference Texas finds itself have always been overlooked. There have been some very nice schools that have passed through the doors of the Big 12 as you have mentioned and there are several high quality ones in the fold now, but it's not a who's who and never has been.

For example, the relationship with Rice, an elite school, was apparently not valuable enough to maintain when moving from the SWC into the Big 12. That's significant as it would point directly to a vastly different criteria being employed when deciding conference mates. Surely Rice makes the cut if we're concerned about academic quality. The people of UT have been known to make fun of Houston for being a community college basically, but as the SWC was breaking up let's consider we have Rice on the outside looking in all the same...no distinction was offered between the two. What they have in common is clearly a lack of athletic gravitas and the funding to be competitive.

Or let's look at who Texas approved when the 4 flagships left 10 years ago...West Virginia and TCU. Again, this is not a knock on anyone, but these are not elite schools while other more prestigious schools were clearly available....Tulane, Colorado State, Tulsa, BYU, or the aforementioned Rice. Even Cincinnati is well regarded if we're looking at crossing into the Eastern US. It's not even a matter of choosing superior academics when all else is equal. I mean, Morgantown is a heck of a long distance to go to find a school that Texas was simply willing to "settle" for in a less than ideal situation.

What West Virginia and TCU had in common were quality athletic departments that could generate revenue for the Big 12. The others had better academics, but a lesser ability to deliver TV revenue.

Bullet, I'm not arguing with you here. I don't doubt at all that UT administrators have the perspective you suggest. I'm just taking the opportunity to say they are utterly disingenuous. If they were truly concerned about the best combination of athletic and academic success they could find then they'd be banging the door down to get into the Big Ten. They aren't doing that and most likely never will.

Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

Personally, I don't care if Texas ever joins the SEC. We don't need them although I would certainly welcome them because I'm not a goofus and recognize the value they bring. With that said, I also wouldn't be shocked if they stuck their nose up at the SEC every opportunity they were given.

This is perhaps self-indulgent, but my only point is that I bristle at arrogance when it's combined with a facade. The leaders of UT-Austin are doing nothing but keeping up appearances. They are certainly free to do that from now until Kingdom come, but I probably won't miss an opportunity to call them out for their nonsense. Not that anyone cares what I think or should for that matter, but I was bored.

Rice is not a fair comparison.
Rice has under 4,000 UG students and just couldn't compete on a regular basis with other Big 12 schools. The same would hold true of Wake Forest (approx 5,000 UG students), if the ACC were to disband and their long time rivals went to a larger conference. Wake wouldn't be asked to join, simply because they couldn't compete on a multitude of levels (such as fan support, number of alumni and the money that can mean to a program, etc.) That is not to say that Carolina or Duke wouldn't want to continue to have a relationship with Wake Forest if they moved on, and that is because Wake is viewed as an academic peer.

(03-13-2020 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

There is a difference in the impact of travel when you compare Texas joining the Pac-12 or Big Ten with 4 other central time zone schools that are in Texas or Oklahoma versus joining a relatively distant league with no other local schools where the closest conference mate would be 800 miles away and every other school would be over 1,000 miles away.

The issue with the Big Ten is that the Big Ten would never invite 3 to 5 "local buddies" of UT to join the Big Ten with them, whereas the Pac would, and the SEC doesn't need to because of the relative closeness of TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas.

Well when they were planning the Pac 16, the Pac officials and schools looking at moving were trying to minimize travel in the scheduling. That was why President Powers said they figured they could get the same thing staying in the Big 12. They could schedule Pac 12 schools ooc about as often and still make the same money. So why do it?

(03-13-2020 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

There is a difference in the impact of travel when you compare Texas joining the Pac-12 or Big Ten with 4 other central time zone schools that are in Texas or Oklahoma versus joining a relatively distant league with no other local schools where the closest conference mate would be 800 miles away and every other school would be over 1,000 miles away.

The issue with the Big Ten is that the Big Ten would never invite 3 to 5 "local buddies" of UT to join the Big Ten with them, whereas the Pac would, and the SEC doesn't need to because of the relative closeness of TAMU, LSU, and Arkansas.

Granted, but the difference isn't significant. Not as far as the strain that it would put on the athletes and their schedules on a consistent basis. You'd have a few less games in far away locales, but you'd still have quite a number of them. And when you account for moving 2 time zones away for almost all of your road games(the exception being Colorado in this mythical incarnation of the PAC 16 or a small number of games confined to the Central Time Zone) as opposed to only 1 away at the worst with the Big Ten, you also experience a greater stress on the body/mind when adjusting back to life on campus.

You could certainly make an argument that travel within the PAC 12 would be less disruptive as opposed to moving within the Big Ten, but it would be far more disruptive than moving within the SEC, for example. Assuming the line of reasoning that UT is looking for a "best overall" solution as opposed to an "ideal" when all factors are taken into account, I think the my conclusion still stands.

I doubt that Texas wants to move to the SEC and for 2 reasons.

1) They would have less influence than anywhere else because there are numerous big money programs while even most of the poorer programs in the league are above average nationally.

2) The competition would be stiff year in and year out with virtually every sport. On the field, Texas wouldn't be all that special. That makes their job tougher and it means they'll have to spend more to compete.

If Texas needed the money then it would be a different equation, but they'll make a crap ton of cash no matter what they do.

AllTideUp

Academics is a floor, not a criteria. If Rice was a Notre Dame level power, everyone would be interested in them. Boise probably has the best W/L over the last 20 years and none of the P5 are. IMO Memphis would have been the 2nd strongest (after BYU) addition to the Big 12 from an athletic standpoint, but they didn't even make the list. Rice, SMU, Tulane and Air Force all did, along with UCF, USF, UConn, Colorado St., Cincinnati, Houston and BYU. All indications are Cincinnati, Houston and BYU were the final 3 considered. That was based on athletics, not rating the 11 who made the floor.

And the Presidents look at research. Exceptions are schools that are strong undergraduate institutions such as Notre Dame.
In 2015, there were only 8 P5 schools that were not (and only 17 G5s that were) at Carnegie's highest research level. 3 strong privates-Wake Forest, TCU and Baylor; Oklahoma St. and 4 SEC schools-Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Mississippi St. So the SEC West had 4 of the 5 public schools not in the highest level. Now since then, I think all 5 of those public schools have advanced into the highest research level.

(03-13-2020 02:08 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 12:14 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 11:02 AM)schmolik Wrote:  OU, yes. No self respecting Texas Longhorn fan cares about Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech. They're all little brothers. I would think A&M is the real in state rival although it's been years since they left for the SEC.

They care. They may not view them as equals, but they care. Baylor has more recent success in football, and Tech played for a NC in men's basketball last year. That doesn't play well in Austin. Still, at this time, UT would rather play the in-state schools than leave the region. This is subject to change.

The UT-A&M relationship is more complicated. It's worthy of its own message board thread, and really a book. Yes, they're rivals. Right now, they'd rather live without each other. But, they are starting to play each other in sports outside of football.

If Texas would rather play a bunch of second rate Texas schools than A&M then it sounds like a scaredy cat to me.

If you had ever been around A&M fans you would understand!

(03-13-2020 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 01:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-12-2020 08:21 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  XLance—the West Coast has a ton of people but the PAC 12 can’t compete financially with the SEC and Big Ten. A Texlahoma marriage to the PAC 12 is highly unlikely because the money isn’t there and I hazard to say the Central Time Zone schools will take issue with the late starts.

If Texas and/or Oklahoma don’t exact an even more lopsided deal to keep them in the Big 12 they will head to either the SEC or Big 10 where they will have boatloads of money.

On a separate note, I don’t buy the argument that academics are a deal breaking point on contention for Texas to the SEC:

9 member SWC: 3 AAU
12 member Big 12: 7 AAU
10 member Big 12: 3 AAU
16 member SEC: 5 AAU

The SWC also had SMU, Baylor and TCU who weren't AAU but who were strong schools. The original Big 12 had 7 of 12 AAU members.

Probably the unspoken issue is that WVU, KSU, OSU may have the same academics as Alabama, LSU and Ole Miss, but don't have the same resources. And there really is a gap between the SEC East and SEC West. 4 of the top 5 SEC schools are in the East and arguably, the bottom 5 are in the west.

In any event, it doesn't matter whether there is an academic difference or not. What matters is that the Texas administration, mostly from UC, Ivy League and Big 10 schools, believes there is.

There are a couple of issues.

1. WVU, KSU, and OSU are all in a tier more or less below virtually every SEC school. The SEC schools are flagships and they do have more resources at their disposal, fair enough, but they are also not on an even plane with several Big 12 schools. That's not a knock on Big 12 members as I think the idea of administrators worrying about these designations in the context of athletic affiliation is mostly silly anyway.

2. As JR has said, any deficiencies found within whatever conference Texas finds itself have always been overlooked. There have been some very nice schools that have passed through the doors of the Big 12 as you have mentioned and there are several high quality ones in the fold now, but it's not a who's who and never has been.

For example, the relationship with Rice, an elite school, was apparently not valuable enough to maintain when moving from the SWC into the Big 12. That's significant as it would point directly to a vastly different criteria being employed when deciding conference mates. Surely Rice makes the cut if we're concerned about academic quality. The people of UT have been known to make fun of Houston for being a community college basically, but as the SWC was breaking up let's consider we have Rice on the outside looking in all the same...no distinction was offered between the two. What they have in common is clearly a lack of athletic gravitas and the funding to be competitive.

Or let's look at who Texas approved when the 4 flagships left 10 years ago...West Virginia and TCU. Again, this is not a knock on anyone, but these are not elite schools while other more prestigious schools were clearly available....Tulane, Colorado State, Tulsa, BYU, or the aforementioned Rice. Even Cincinnati is well regarded if we're looking at crossing into the Eastern US. It's not even a matter of choosing superior academics when all else is equal. I mean, Morgantown is a heck of a long distance to go to find a school that Texas was simply willing to "settle" for in a less than ideal situation.

What West Virginia and TCU had in common were quality athletic departments that could generate revenue for the Big 12. The others had better academics, but a lesser ability to deliver TV revenue.

Bullet, I'm not arguing with you here. I don't doubt at all that UT administrators have the perspective you suggest. I'm just taking the opportunity to say they are utterly disingenuous. If they were truly concerned about the best combination of athletic and academic success they could find then they'd be banging the door down to get into the Big Ten. They aren't doing that and most likely never will.

Even the concerns over travel don't make the difference there as flying all over the West Coast was apparently seriously considered. That sort of travel is just as bad and maybe a little worse when you consider the time zone differences.

Personally, I don't care if Texas ever joins the SEC. We don't need them although I would certainly welcome them because I'm not a goofus and recognize the value they bring. With that said, I also wouldn't be shocked if they stuck their nose up at the SEC every opportunity they were given.

This is perhaps self-indulgent, but my only point is that I bristle at arrogance when it's combined with a facade. The leaders of UT-Austin are doing nothing but keeping up appearances. They are certainly free to do that from now until Kingdom come, but I probably won't miss an opportunity to call them out for their nonsense. Not that anyone cares what I think or should for that matter, but I was bored.

Rice is not a fair comparison.
Rice has under 4,000 UG students and just couldn't compete on a regular basis with other Big 12 schools. The same would hold true of Wake Forest (approx 5,000 UG students), if the ACC were to disband and their long time rivals went to a larger conference. Wake wouldn't be asked to join, simply because they couldn't compete on a multitude of levels (such as fan support, number of alumni and the money that can mean to a program, etc.) That is not to say that Carolina or Duke wouldn't want to continue to have a relationship with Wake Forest if they moved on, and that is because Wake is viewed as an academic peer.

Well, it's not fair to expect Rice or Wake Forest to compete at that level, but my point was that the academic reputation didn't factor into the decision.

We have to use common sense here. Academic relationships/partnerships can be maintained just as well outside of the context of an athletic conference as they can within. The athletic component has no innate bearing on anything. There's no legal framework or practical reality that would prevent schools from partnering with each other outside of athletic conferences. I mean, what is the AAU if not a collection of schools that work together without regard to athletics? Many of the AAU schools aren't even FBS. Some of the AAU schools don't even have athletics. One or two of the AAU schools aren't even in the USA. Obviously there are other organizations that operate with similar dynamics.

Let's take Vanderbilt and Florida for example. Both of them are AAU schools so I'm sure they cooperate with each other in various capacities. Do they cooperate more with Georgia or Alabama or South Carolina because of their common SEC affiliation or do they have more working relationships with UNC or Ohio State or Texas? Not that I'm up to date on the latest grants or cooperatives, but I'd bet it's the latter.

The athletic component just isn't relevant. There's certainly an economic component when it comes to affiliations that reaches outside of athletic performance and there's a synergy there with academic endeavors, no doubt about that. Even then, it's a more complicated equation than a particular group of schools rank high on this list over here and this other groups of schools ranks lower.

With Texas it is really this simple. They will do what protects their business model. They have the best business model in college sports. They aren't going to make a move that hurts that business model, or alters their branding in a significant way. That means if anyone lands Texas they are going to end up with at least 2 other Texas schools and Texas will have to into a division that keeps it's play central to Texas.

That's not the Big 10. That's not the PAC unless they take a block of schools.

(03-13-2020 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  With Texas it is really this simple. They will do what protects their business model. They have the best business model in college sports. They aren't going to make a move that hurts that business model, or alters their branding in a significant way. That means if anyone lands Texas they are going to end up with at least 2 other Texas schools and Texas will have to into a division that keeps it's play central to Texas.

That's not the Big 10. That's not the PAC unless they take a block of schools.

So Texas is willing to accept less money from the Big Ten or SEC just to stay with Texas Tech and Baylor? They're stupid if they do.

I hope the SEC takes Oklahoma and forces Texas to make a choice, Oklahoma or Texas Tech/Baylor. Maybe Oklahoma tells Texas if they don't join the SEC they won't play Texas anymore either. The two schools forced their way into the Big 12 when they had no business being there in the first place. Time for them to get what they deserve.

(03-13-2020 03:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  AllTideUp

Academics is a floor, not a criteria. If Rice was a Notre Dame level power, everyone would be interested in them. Boise probably has the best W/L over the last 20 years and none of the P5 are. IMO Memphis would have been the 2nd strongest (after BYU) addition to the Big 12 from an athletic standpoint, but they didn't even make the list. Rice, SMU, Tulane and Air Force all did, along with UCF, USF, UConn, Colorado St., Cincinnati, Houston and BYU. All indications are Cincinnati, Houston and BYU were the final 3 considered. That was based on athletics, not rating the 11 who made the floor.

And the Presidents look at research. Exceptions are schools that are strong undergraduate institutions such as Notre Dame.
In 2015, there were only 8 P5 schools that were not (and only 17 G5s that were) at Carnegie's highest research level. 3 strong privates-Wake Forest, TCU and Baylor; Oklahoma St. and 4 SEC schools-Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Mississippi St. So the SEC West had 4 of the 5 public schools not in the highest level. Now since then, I think all 5 of those public schools have advanced into the highest research level.

Yes, all the SEC schools are now at Carnegie level 1, but I think you're making my point for me. You're 100% correct that Rice is not Notre Dame. Rice is also not Alabama or Florida State, but if either of those 2 schools came calling then do you think Texas and company would support their membership in the Big 12? Of course they would.

We have to make a distinction between the recruiting process of 2011/2012 as opposed to the one 4 or 5 years ago when the Big 12 didn't add anyone, but the list of schools is about the same. Either way, TCU and West Virginia were added to maintain the TV contract and because they provided the best opportunity for revenue growth at that time. The academically superior schools were not added because they didn't fulfill the goal of greater revenue. In other words, their athletic performance was inadequate therefore they didn't get the call.

A few years ago, the whole thing was a dog and pony show. They never intended on adding anyone because they knew the TV networks wouldn't pay for it. Therefore you had a list of schools that couldn't really be quantified as strong academic schools or weak ones. They simply talked to whoever made time to do it and most of those schools wouldn't compare with the SEC's list.

Point being, no one really feels the need to play football against schools that are of high academic ranking. What purpose would it serve? I mean, the vast majority of athletes in high profile sports aren't your elite students anyway. The graduate students and their professors are responsible for those rankings. The athletic teams just provide some nice commercials for the institution. And because they are providing content for TV networks, by far the most salient factor is the audience they can generate even if maybe their athletic performance isn't always stellar. What matters is can they bring fans to the table and make everyone money.

For example, most of the Big Ten schools aren't that great at most sports. Doesn't matter because they've got a ton of fans that will tune in anyway. Networks will pay for that and so athletic conferences will make decisions based on that.

If Texas or anyone else really in big time athletics was primarily concerned with academic quality then athletic performance would be secondary at best. The academic reputation/research rankings would be paramount.

In reality, the "floor" isn't really a floor. If it is then it's an awfully wobbly floor that seems to shift depending on the circumstances. So it's logical to conclude it's not of high priority in most situations, but it can certainly be trotted out if it fits a narrative.

No one in leadership at UT-Austin wants to talk about what they would lose if they joined a league like the SEC so it makes them look better to pretend to be concerned with quantitative rankings that don't actually have any real world impact on athletic affiliations.

(03-13-2020 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  With Texas it is really this simple. They will do what protects their business model. They have the best business model in college sports. They aren't going to make a move that hurts that business model, or alters their branding in a significant way. That means if anyone lands Texas they are going to end up with at least 2 other Texas schools and Texas will have to into a division that keeps it's play central to Texas.

That's not the Big 10. That's not the PAC unless they take a block of schools.

Personally, I'm fine with Oklahoma and Kansas if we can get that combo. I think they fit the SEC culture better anyway.

If Texas wants to come then obviously we make room for them, but I really don't think we should go out of our way. If they're not interested in entering on the same terms as anyone else would then I say let them be. If we really needed them then it would be different, but we don't have to have them.

I'd even be ok with TCU and maybe finding a 4th member in the East...that is, if we really wanted a more direct presence in TX. I think there's some tangential benefit in that as well.

(03-13-2020 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  s
With Texas it is really this simple. They will do what protects their business model. They have the best business model in college sports. They aren't going to make a move that hurts that business model, or alters their branding in a significant way. That means if anyone lands Texas they are going to end up with at least 2 other Texas schools and Texas will have to into a division that keeps it's play central to Texas.

That's not the Big 10. That's not the PAC unless they take a block of schools.

Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado. Still leaves room for TCU, SMU, Rice, Baylor, UTSA, UTEP on a rotating basis.
It's the best of both worlds and would suit Texas to a T.

(03-13-2020 05:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-13-2020 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  s
With Texas it is really this simple. They will do what protects their business model. They have the best business model in college sports. They aren't going to make a move that hurts that business model, or alters their branding in a significant way. That means if anyone lands Texas they are going to end up with at least 2 other Texas schools and Texas will have to into a division that keeps it's play central to Texas.

That's not the Big 10. That's not the PAC unless they take a block of schools.

Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado. Still leaves room for TCU, SMU, Rice, Baylor, UTSA, UTEP on a rotating basis.
It's the best of both worlds and would suit Texas to a T.

So you're saying Pac 12 + Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Tech.

They can do Pacific and Mountain/Central with the Pacific the original Pac-8 and the Mountain/Central being the four Big 12's, Colorado, Utah, and the two Arizona schools but you'd have two ticked offed Arizona schools.

You can do rotating quads:
Central: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas Tech
Mountain: Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State
California: UCLA. USC, California, Stanford
Northwest: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State

9 game schedule, every team plays everyone in their division and one other division and one team from the other two divisions. Divisions rotate after a home and home, guaranteeing every conference team not in California a trip to California every other year.

Texas's Pac 12:

2024-5: vs Califormia division, Colorado, Oregon
2026-7: vs. Northwest division: USC, Arizona State
2028-9: vs. Mountain division: California, Washington