Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 22,464
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2063
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #61
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-20-2020 10:39 PM)Statefan Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 09:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 09:13 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(01-15-2020 08:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

From a Big Ten perspective it's an open question whether they'd be willing to wait an extra thirteen years for a program that has rejected their overtures in the past and, due to the way they recruit, may potentially suffer a Nebraska-like decline, when they might have a chance to win over two brands, a basketball brand and a +1 in a growing area of the country.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a full-court press behind the scenes to win over all of UT, TT, OU and KU. While getting to 18 in one shot would be awkward, the risk of waiting additional years for something that may not pan out might be even greater.

Just my humble opinion.

And that's where it gets interesting. That's where an OU/OSU, UT/TTU offer comes into play for the SEC. ESPN if they want those brands to complete their hold on Texas will commit the resources.

I would think if ESPN placed TT/UT/OU/OSU into the SEC and went to 18 that they would place TCU, Kansas and one other in the ACC for two conferences with three divisions of six.

SEC West - TT, Texas, OU, OSU, Arkansas, Mizzou
SEC Gulf TAMU, LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, TN Bama
SEC East Florida, UGA, Auburn, SC, Vandy, Kentucky

Two rivals, and they can come from the ACC.

Bama - Vandy, Auburn
UGa - GT, LSU
Florida - FSU, Mizzou
Texas - TAMU, LSU
Kentucky - Lousivlle, TN
TN - Vandy, Kentucky
LSU - Texas, Arkansas
Oklahoma - Ole Miss, Nebraska
Vandy - Bama, TN
Ole Miss - OU, Mizzou
MSU - , Auburn, TT
TT - Ole Miss, MSU
Auburn - Alabama, MSU
Mizzou - FLorida, Ole Miss
TAMU - Texas, SC
SC - Clemson, TAMU
OSU - Arkansas
Arkansas - LSU, OSU

ACC North - ND, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Miami, Navy
ACC West - Kansas, TCU, GT, FSU, Louisville, Clemson
ACC Atlantic - VT, UVa, UNC, NCSU, Duke, WF
Everyone gets

There aren't too many ways to divide up the current powers. I'm not so sure that ESPN needs or wants to pay for Oklahoma. They have paid handsomely to hold onto to Texas. If ESPN has Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech they control DFW. At that point OU is redundant and if the price for OU is OSU then it is doubly redundant. And there's the angle that Texas really regains a full upper hand with the move. Baylor and T.C.U. no longer carry the same brand they have. Oklahoma is retained for the RRR, but not as an SEC member which does help to keep some Texas recruits at home. ESPN doesn't have to wonder about how to position Oklahoma State or Kansas State if it works this way.

T.C.U. and Baylor become the schools transferred to the ACC. ESPN still owns all of the P5 properties in Texas. T.C.U. and Baylor give them solid enough sports properties, the DFW demographic for the ACC and part of Houston. N.D. remains a partial for now. Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech and F.S.U. get extra football help with those 2 and yet both bring decent hoops and baseball.

Oklahoma and Kansas join the Big 10.

SEC:
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas Tech
Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest.
Baylor, Florida State, Miami, T.C.U.
* Notre Dame

Big 10:
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma

There's your likeliest solution.

Texas can play both Notre Dame and Oklahoma if they wish since their main rivals will be essentially in division. Notre Dame can play Texas and a California school if they wish and still have 3 more games to schedule Navy, a Deep South school, and play Stanford.
01-20-2020 11:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,646
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 498
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #62
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-20-2020 11:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There aren't too many ways to divide up the current powers. I'm not so sure that ESPN needs or wants to pay for Oklahoma. They have paid handsomely to hold onto to Texas. If ESPN has Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech they control DFW. At that point OU is redundant and if the price for OU is OSU then it is doubly redundant. And there's the angle that Texas really regains a full upper hand with the move. Baylor and T.C.U. no longer carry the same brand they have. Oklahoma is retained for the RRR, but not as an SEC member which does help to keep some Texas recruits at home. ESPN doesn't have to wonder about how to position Oklahoma State or Kansas State if it works this way.

T.C.U. and Baylor become the schools transferred to the ACC. ESPN still owns all of the P5 properties in Texas. T.C.U. and Baylor give them solid enough sports properties, the DFW demographic for the ACC and part of Houston. N.D. remains a partial for now. Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech and F.S.U. get extra football help with those 2 and yet both bring decent hoops and baseball.

Oklahoma and Kansas join the Big 10.

SEC:
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas Tech
Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest.
Baylor, Florida State, Miami, T.C.U.
* Notre Dame

Big 10:
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma

There's your likeliest solution.

Texas can play both Notre Dame and Oklahoma if they wish since their main rivals will be essentially in division. Notre Dame can play Texas and a California school if they wish and still have 3 more games to schedule Navy, a Deep South school, and play Stanford.

I still don't get the value of adding TCU and Baylor to the ACC. Frankly, I think that if those schools play mostly opponents that no one in Texas really cares about, their recruiting will take a big hit. It might anyway, if they are separated from UT, TT and A&M without leaving the Big XII. And I doubt that two mediocre teams from outside the southeast will excite ACC fans much either.

EDIT: If the alignments shown above are intended to be divisions, such that there would be semifinal games added to a Conference Championship Tournament, then the ACC need not go to 16. They could instead add just one team and have three divisions of five with a wild card in the CCT. For geographic balance as well as restoring old rivalries, that could be West Virginia (which the Big XII would probably rather give up than TCU or Baylor).
(This post was last modified: 01-21-2020 03:34 PM by ken d.)
01-21-2020 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,451
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1214
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #63
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-20-2020 08:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 05:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  People still look at Texas politics through the lens of the early 90s when the B12 was formed.

But things have changed.

West Texas Populism is no longer a political force and Bob Bullock and Anne Richards aren’t in charge anymore. A UT grad lives in the governors mansion and the LTG is a Maryland Native who went to UMBC so he doesn’t care at all about Texas college football.

Given that truth, the idea that UT HAS to take a certain school with them to avoid political reprisals is simply not true anymore even if their fans are clinging to it as a last desperate hope (and why wouldn’t they? What other choice do they have?)

Truth is, if UT felt free to demand anyone tag along it would be Rice. A historic opponent with great academics and of course a free recruiting trip to Houston every other year against an opponent that will never beat them in anything except baseball and D&D.

Thanks for the insight.
BTW Rice and Wake Forest are about the same size.

False insight. Texas Tech and Baylor don't have the enormous power in the legislature they had back then, but Tech still is a major force. They control West Texas and I've read they have the largest alumni base in DFW, bigger than Texas or Texas A&M (who draw from around the state while Texas Tech is West Texas and DFW). Even 40+ years ago, my DFW HS had more students go to Tech than any other 4 year school.

Leaving Tech behind would just alienate too many people in the legislature. It would also tend to hurt Texas Tech's effort to improve its academic reputation. That is a goal of Texas for two reasons: 1) It creates more of a critical mass, helping everyone; and 2) If Texas Tech is more attractive to students, it decreases political pressure on Texas to expand its number of students to a figure they don't think is manageable.
01-21-2020 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,756
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 245
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #64
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-21-2020 02:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 08:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 05:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  People still look at Texas politics through the lens of the early 90s when the B12 was formed.

But things have changed.

West Texas Populism is no longer a political force and Bob Bullock and Anne Richards aren’t in charge anymore. A UT grad lives in the governors mansion and the LTG is a Maryland Native who went to UMBC so he doesn’t care at all about Texas college football.

Given that truth, the idea that UT HAS to take a certain school with them to avoid political reprisals is simply not true anymore even if their fans are clinging to it as a last desperate hope (and why wouldn’t they? What other choice do they have?)

Truth is, if UT felt free to demand anyone tag along it would be Rice. A historic opponent with great academics and of course a free recruiting trip to Houston every other year against an opponent that will never beat them in anything except baseball and D&D.

Thanks for the insight.
BTW Rice and Wake Forest are about the same size.

False insight. Texas Tech and Baylor don't have the enormous power in the legislature they had back then, but Tech still is a major force. They control West Texas and I've read they have the largest alumni base in DFW, bigger than Texas or Texas A&M (who draw from around the state while Texas Tech is West Texas and DFW). Even 40+ years ago, my DFW HS had more students go to Tech than any other 4 year school.

Leaving Tech behind would just alienate too many people in the legislature. It would also tend to hurt Texas Tech's effort to improve its academic reputation. That is a goal of Texas for two reasons: 1) It creates more of a critical mass, helping everyone; and 2) If Texas Tech is more attractive to students, it decreases political pressure on Texas to expand its number of students to a figure they don't think is manageable.

Why doesn't Texas just limit enrollment to a certain number?
01-21-2020 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,976
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 271
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #65
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-21-2020 02:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 08:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 05:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  People still look at Texas politics through the lens of the early 90s when the B12 was formed.

But things have changed.

West Texas Populism is no longer a political force and Bob Bullock and Anne Richards aren’t in charge anymore. A UT grad lives in the governors mansion and the LTG is a Maryland Native who went to UMBC so he doesn’t care at all about Texas college football.

Given that truth, the idea that UT HAS to take a certain school with them to avoid political reprisals is simply not true anymore even if their fans are clinging to it as a last desperate hope (and why wouldn’t they? What other choice do they have?)

Truth is, if UT felt free to demand anyone tag along it would be Rice. A historic opponent with great academics and of course a free recruiting trip to Houston every other year against an opponent that will never beat them in anything except baseball and D&D.

Thanks for the insight.
BTW Rice and Wake Forest are about the same size.

False insight. Texas Tech and Baylor don't have the enormous power in the legislature they had back then, but Tech still is a major force. They control West Texas and I've read they have the largest alumni base in DFW, bigger than Texas or Texas A&M (who draw from around the state while Texas Tech is West Texas and DFW). Even 40+ years ago, my DFW HS had more students go to Tech than any other 4 year school.

Leaving Tech behind would just alienate too many people in the legislature. It would also tend to hurt Texas Tech's effort to improve its academic reputation. That is a goal of Texas for two reasons: 1) It creates more of a critical mass, helping everyone; and 2) If Texas Tech is more attractive to students, it decreases political pressure on Texas to expand its number of students to a figure they don't think is manageable.

Sounds like you’re stuck with them like OU is stuck with OSU.
01-21-2020 10:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,451
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1214
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #66
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-21-2020 09:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-21-2020 02:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 08:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 05:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  People still look at Texas politics through the lens of the early 90s when the B12 was formed.

But things have changed.

West Texas Populism is no longer a political force and Bob Bullock and Anne Richards aren’t in charge anymore. A UT grad lives in the governors mansion and the LTG is a Maryland Native who went to UMBC so he doesn’t care at all about Texas college football.

Given that truth, the idea that UT HAS to take a certain school with them to avoid political reprisals is simply not true anymore even if their fans are clinging to it as a last desperate hope (and why wouldn’t they? What other choice do they have?)

Truth is, if UT felt free to demand anyone tag along it would be Rice. A historic opponent with great academics and of course a free recruiting trip to Houston every other year against an opponent that will never beat them in anything except baseball and D&D.

Thanks for the insight.
BTW Rice and Wake Forest are about the same size.

False insight. Texas Tech and Baylor don't have the enormous power in the legislature they had back then, but Tech still is a major force. They control West Texas and I've read they have the largest alumni base in DFW, bigger than Texas or Texas A&M (who draw from around the state while Texas Tech is West Texas and DFW). Even 40+ years ago, my DFW HS had more students go to Tech than any other 4 year school.

Leaving Tech behind would just alienate too many people in the legislature. It would also tend to hurt Texas Tech's effort to improve its academic reputation. That is a goal of Texas for two reasons: 1) It creates more of a critical mass, helping everyone; and 2) If Texas Tech is more attractive to students, it decreases political pressure on Texas to expand its number of students to a figure they don't think is manageable.

Why doesn't Texas just limit enrollment to a certain number?

Texas has kept its enrollment to around 50,000 since the early 80s. Texas A&M had frozen theirs around 45,000 since the mid 90s. But Governor Perry was listening to a guy who wanted both to go to around 75,000. Texas fought it tooth and nail. A&M accepted it and jumped to around 55,000 in just 2 or 3 years. With Perry gone, the pressure isn't as bad, but its still there. Everyone wants to get into Texas or Texas A&M and most students can't.
01-21-2020 10:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,756
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 245
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #67
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-21-2020 10:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-21-2020 09:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-21-2020 02:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 08:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 05:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  People still look at Texas politics through the lens of the early 90s when the B12 was formed.

But things have changed.

West Texas Populism is no longer a political force and Bob Bullock and Anne Richards aren’t in charge anymore. A UT grad lives in the governors mansion and the LTG is a Maryland Native who went to UMBC so he doesn’t care at all about Texas college football.

Given that truth, the idea that UT HAS to take a certain school with them to avoid political reprisals is simply not true anymore even if their fans are clinging to it as a last desperate hope (and why wouldn’t they? What other choice do they have?)

Truth is, if UT felt free to demand anyone tag along it would be Rice. A historic opponent with great academics and of course a free recruiting trip to Houston every other year against an opponent that will never beat them in anything except baseball and D&D.

Thanks for the insight.
BTW Rice and Wake Forest are about the same size.

False insight. Texas Tech and Baylor don't have the enormous power in the legislature they had back then, but Tech still is a major force. They control West Texas and I've read they have the largest alumni base in DFW, bigger than Texas or Texas A&M (who draw from around the state while Texas Tech is West Texas and DFW). Even 40+ years ago, my DFW HS had more students go to Tech than any other 4 year school.

Leaving Tech behind would just alienate too many people in the legislature. It would also tend to hurt Texas Tech's effort to improve its academic reputation. That is a goal of Texas for two reasons: 1) It creates more of a critical mass, helping everyone; and 2) If Texas Tech is more attractive to students, it decreases political pressure on Texas to expand its number of students to a figure they don't think is manageable.

Why doesn't Texas just limit enrollment to a certain number?

Texas has kept its enrollment to around 50,000 since the early 80s. Texas A&M had frozen theirs around 45,000 since the mid 90s. But Governor Perry was listening to a guy who wanted both to go to around 75,000. Texas fought it tooth and nail. A&M accepted it and jumped to around 55,000 in just 2 or 3 years. With Perry gone, the pressure isn't as bad, but its still there. Everyone wants to get into Texas or Texas A&M and most students can't.

That's a B1G sized school.
Carolina has about 18,000 UG students (which is about 40% more that when I graduated).
Yesterday 05:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,756
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 245
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #68
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-21-2020 01:03 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 11:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There aren't too many ways to divide up the current powers. I'm not so sure that ESPN needs or wants to pay for Oklahoma. They have paid handsomely to hold onto to Texas. If ESPN has Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech they control DFW. At that point OU is redundant and if the price for OU is OSU then it is doubly redundant. And there's the angle that Texas really regains a full upper hand with the move. Baylor and T.C.U. no longer carry the same brand they have. Oklahoma is retained for the RRR, but not as an SEC member which does help to keep some Texas recruits at home. ESPN doesn't have to wonder about how to position Oklahoma State or Kansas State if it works this way.

T.C.U. and Baylor become the schools transferred to the ACC. ESPN still owns all of the P5 properties in Texas. T.C.U. and Baylor give them solid enough sports properties, the DFW demographic for the ACC and part of Houston. N.D. remains a partial for now. Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech and F.S.U. get extra football help with those 2 and yet both bring decent hoops and baseball.

Oklahoma and Kansas join the Big 10.

SEC:
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas Tech
Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest.
Baylor, Florida State, Miami, T.C.U.
* Notre Dame

Big 10:
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma

There's your likeliest solution.

Texas can play both Notre Dame and Oklahoma if they wish since their main rivals will be essentially in division. Notre Dame can play Texas and a California school if they wish and still have 3 more games to schedule Navy, a Deep South school, and play Stanford.

I still don't get the value of adding TCU and Baylor to the ACC. Frankly, I think that if those schools play mostly opponents that no one in Texas really cares about, their recruiting will take a big hit. It might anyway, if they are separated from UT, TT and A&M without leaving the Big XII. And I doubt that two mediocre teams from outside the southeast will excite ACC fans much either.

EDIT: If the alignments shown above are intended to be divisions, such that there would be semifinal games added to a Conference Championship Tournament, then the ACC need not go to 16. They could instead add just one team and have three divisions of five with a wild card in the CCT. For geographic balance as well as restoring old rivalries, that could be West Virginia (which the Big XII would probably rather give up than TCU or Baylor).

Several years ago you would never see a scenario that excluded the PAC. What you would see is a P4 with 16 teams stuffed into 4 conferences to make things come out even.
Now what we start to see is the PAC is being excluded, because nobody wants to see the value of the Big 12 ( which is necessary to build the value of the PAC ) to head west. So what we now see are 16 teams stuffed into 3 conferences where all of the Big 12's value will reside.
So if we are to have a P4, either Texas (and friends) or Oklahoma and Kansas and a few others will have to head to the PAC.
If we keep a P5, then we need to start looking at scenarios that move value from the ESPN controlled SEC to the ESPN controlled Big 12 (maybe Missouri and Arkansas ?)
The PAC will have to sell their network, and properly promoted the conference could make money especially if they added value to the east.

Just food for thought
Yesterday 06:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,451
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1214
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #69
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(Yesterday 05:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-21-2020 10:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-21-2020 09:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-21-2020 02:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-20-2020 08:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Thanks for the insight.
BTW Rice and Wake Forest are about the same size.

False insight. Texas Tech and Baylor don't have the enormous power in the legislature they had back then, but Tech still is a major force. They control West Texas and I've read they have the largest alumni base in DFW, bigger than Texas or Texas A&M (who draw from around the state while Texas Tech is West Texas and DFW). Even 40+ years ago, my DFW HS had more students go to Tech than any other 4 year school.

Leaving Tech behind would just alienate too many people in the legislature. It would also tend to hurt Texas Tech's effort to improve its academic reputation. That is a goal of Texas for two reasons: 1) It creates more of a critical mass, helping everyone; and 2) If Texas Tech is more attractive to students, it decreases political pressure on Texas to expand its number of students to a figure they don't think is manageable.

Why doesn't Texas just limit enrollment to a certain number?

Texas has kept its enrollment to around 50,000 since the early 80s. Texas A&M had frozen theirs around 45,000 since the mid 90s. But Governor Perry was listening to a guy who wanted both to go to around 75,000. Texas fought it tooth and nail. A&M accepted it and jumped to around 55,000 in just 2 or 3 years. With Perry gone, the pressure isn't as bad, but its still there. Everyone wants to get into Texas or Texas A&M and most students can't.

That's a B1G sized school.
Carolina has about 18,000 UG students (which is about 40% more that when I graduated).

That's graduate and undergraduate. Its about 20-25% graduate. Texas grew from about 20,000 to 40,000 in the 60s, stayed around 40k for a decade and then shot up to 50,000 in 2 or 3 years as the state boomed in late 70s/early 80s. Back in those days before mass computerization, administratively it was kind of a mess in the mid to late 80s as it grew too fast.

For a number of years, Texas was the largest university in the nation. Finally Arizona St. shot through the 50k barrier. I think Ohio St. has grown to over 50k. And UCF is massive. Texas A&M as I said, recently jumped up to about 55k.
Yesterday 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,326
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 61
I Root For: Not ESEACCPN
Location:
Post: #70
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(Yesterday 10:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(Yesterday 05:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-21-2020 10:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-21-2020 09:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-21-2020 02:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  False insight. Texas Tech and Baylor don't have the enormous power in the legislature they had back then, but Tech still is a major force. They control West Texas and I've read they have the largest alumni base in DFW, bigger than Texas or Texas A&M (who draw from around the state while Texas Tech is West Texas and DFW). Even 40+ years ago, my DFW HS had more students go to Tech than any other 4 year school.

Leaving Tech behind would just alienate too many people in the legislature. It would also tend to hurt Texas Tech's effort to improve its academic reputation. That is a goal of Texas for two reasons: 1) It creates more of a critical mass, helping everyone; and 2) If Texas Tech is more attractive to students, it decreases political pressure on Texas to expand its number of students to a figure they don't think is manageable.

Why doesn't Texas just limit enrollment to a certain number?

Texas has kept its enrollment to around 50,000 since the early 80s. Texas A&M had frozen theirs around 45,000 since the mid 90s. But Governor Perry was listening to a guy who wanted both to go to around 75,000. Texas fought it tooth and nail. A&M accepted it and jumped to around 55,000 in just 2 or 3 years. With Perry gone, the pressure isn't as bad, but its still there. Everyone wants to get into Texas or Texas A&M and most students can't.

That's a B1G sized school.
Carolina has about 18,000 UG students (which is about 40% more that when I graduated).

That's graduate and undergraduate. Its about 20-25% graduate. Texas grew from about 20,000 to 40,000 in the 60s, stayed around 40k for a decade and then shot up to 50,000 in 2 or 3 years as the state boomed in late 70s/early 80s. Back in those days before mass computerization, administratively it was kind of a mess in the mid to late 80s as it grew too fast.

For a number of years, Texas was the largest university in the nation. Finally Arizona St. shot through the 50k barrier. I think Ohio St. has grown to over 50k. And UCF is massive. Texas A&M as I said, recently jumped up to about 55k.

I read somewhere that Tech expects to reach the 40,000 mark in UG this year. Is that number correct?
Yesterday 10:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,451
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1214
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #71
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(Yesterday 10:14 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(Yesterday 10:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(Yesterday 05:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-21-2020 10:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-21-2020 09:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  Why doesn't Texas just limit enrollment to a certain number?

Texas has kept its enrollment to around 50,000 since the early 80s. Texas A&M had frozen theirs around 45,000 since the mid 90s. But Governor Perry was listening to a guy who wanted both to go to around 75,000. Texas fought it tooth and nail. A&M accepted it and jumped to around 55,000 in just 2 or 3 years. With Perry gone, the pressure isn't as bad, but its still there. Everyone wants to get into Texas or Texas A&M and most students can't.

That's a B1G sized school.
Carolina has about 18,000 UG students (which is about 40% more that when I graduated).

That's graduate and undergraduate. Its about 20-25% graduate. Texas grew from about 20,000 to 40,000 in the 60s, stayed around 40k for a decade and then shot up to 50,000 in 2 or 3 years as the state boomed in late 70s/early 80s. Back in those days before mass computerization, administratively it was kind of a mess in the mid to late 80s as it grew too fast.

For a number of years, Texas was the largest university in the nation. Finally Arizona St. shot through the 50k barrier. I think Ohio St. has grown to over 50k. And UCF is massive. Texas A&M as I said, recently jumped up to about 55k.

I read somewhere that Tech expects to reach the 40,000 mark in UG this year. Is that number correct?

Sounds like total students, not just undergraduates.
Yesterday 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.