(06-11-2020 10:14 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2020 09:16 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-11-2020 04:01 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 01:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 12:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That's hogwash. Larry wanted to have Kansas replace TAMU in the deal (and had authorization from the Pac-10 presidents to do that), and realizing that TAMU wasn't interested was the one and only thing Larry got right. Ok St was not going to be out.

Ok. So if Kansas was the PAC 10 presidents’ approved alternate where did things break down?

Did Texas and Oklahoma not want the Jayhawks?

Everything I recall from the time and what I’ve read they were prepared to join on June 11th, the day after Colorado, and then by the 14th the deal was off.

The Big Ten rumor at the time was 16 with Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, Syracuse, and ND as the targets but that never came to pass.

If I remember correctly, I think Texas initially pitched the idea of UT, A&M, Tech, OU, OSU, and Baylor making the move.

The PAC wasn't interested in that. So uninterested that Colorado was invited first whether Texas decided to move or not. Baylor would never have a slot.

Then you combine it with A&M balking and the numbers just didn't work for Texas.

I also remember an early rumor around this time that UT, A&M, OU, and OSU might move to the SEC. Had a friend at OSU at the time that seemed to hear the same thing. Obviously, that never picked up as much steam.

Oh if that were true, I bet Larry is kicking himself for not accepting to just grab the entire Big 12 South division, which was the better division and rivaled the SEC west in it's peak.

But I don't think baylor was the issue, CO makes more sense than Baylor.

Yes. At least from the Pac side, Colorado was always the one in. They had been talking with them on and off since 1994.

Right, Colorado was always in and that's why they always had the only unconditional invitation other than UT's. CU reached out to their contacts in the Pac-10 when Missouri's governor started dreaming out loud about the Big Ten, and Larry essentially talked the presidents into going big instead of just going for CU.

(06-11-2020 02:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I'm going to concede on the point of SEC admission selectivity, mostly.

Alabama has improved dramatically and only accepts 59% of applicants; it's not hard to get into, but it's not automatic. Kentucky and West Virginia are well over 90%, making them automatic. LSU, Oklahoma State, Mississippi State are in between. Tennessee and Ole' Miss are like Kentucky and West Virginia, a pulse will get you in.

Cannot completely reconcile the large research budgets of LSU and Kentucky with their open door admission and strong faculty ratings. They make Kansas State, Arizona State and Washington State look damned pretty selective.

But Alabama is clearly improving --likely due to more out of State students raising the requirements--, while Georgia and Florida are very competitive to get into (more qualified kids in their state).

LSU was open admission for many years. They were THE university in Louisiana much like Nebraska was in Nebraska. Nebraska was easy to get into but was (until recently) AAU.

Georgia has become ridiculously hard to get into. I know kids who got into Cornell, Georgia Tech, Florida and Tulane who got waitlisted or even rejected by UGA. The Hope Scholarship for students over 3.0 has drawn instate students.

bullet,

I have noticed when flagship schools get impacted they tend to institute PR stunts to make it appear they are improving access. California "capped" foreign students, but in practice the percentage went up (we put a similar minimum state budget spending on education when we were above that number, and now play accounting tricks to claim we make that number, when it's not close), and they offered multiple UC applications in one, which basically collects additional funds without adding a seat.

Georgia has no shortage of applicants, so the access game is a publicity stunt. You take a small handful for show, along with reclassifying people you already were going to accept as in this program, and presto you've "improved access" even though the stats show it becoming more exclusive, more dominated by the successful suburbanite kids.

On my post, South Carolina is in the same category as Alabama, as they accept more (68%, similar to Georgia), but more self selection is going on as you need a higher GPA and SAT score. But Alabama is definitely closing in on those two.

(06-11-2020 02:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I'm going to concede on the point of SEC admission selectivity, mostly.

Alabama has improved dramatically and only accepts 59% of applicants; it's not hard to get into, but it's not automatic. Kentucky and West Virginia are well over 90%, making them automatic. LSU, Oklahoma State, Mississippi State are in between. Tennessee and Ole' Miss are like Kentucky and West Virginia, a pulse will get you in.

Cannot completely reconcile the large research budgets of LSU and Kentucky with their open door admission and strong faculty ratings. They make Kansas State, Arizona State and Washington State look damned pretty selective.

But Alabama is clearly improving --likely due to more out of State students raising the requirements--, while Georgia and Florida are very competitive to get into (more qualified kids in their state).

Who would have thought the day Bama would be harder to get into than Texas aTm?!?!