NCAA Conference Realignment

[snoodmonger]

Just out of curiosity, how is everyone here assessing academic prestige?

 

Because I hear a lot about schools like KU not being a fit in the PAC 10 when they're rated above 5 of the existing schools per US News.

 

And I hear a lot about schools like MU being academically too good for the SEC, when 5 of the 12 schools currently in the SEC rank above Mizzou in the current US News rankings, with Tennessee and South Carolina coming in just after them.

 

Are we dismissing those rankings because they're a joke? If so, what's the basis for evaluating?

 

 

btw, here are the USNWR rankings by conference:

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2009/03/03/college-rankings-by-athletic-conference.html

[Jon]

Chip Brown:

 

Texas A&M turned down invite to join P10 in mtg today with P10's Larry Scott and Kevin Weiberg in College Station, a Big 12 AD confirms.

 

Not surprising, but there was no way A&M would head to the Pac-10 without going at the same time with Texas, anyways.

A&M recruiting insider Billy Liucci says he's confirmed through two different sources that Chip is wrong on this one.

And he quickly "admitted" he was wrong. But either way, A&M turning down an invite now doesn't mean they wouldn't accept an invite that brought along Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. There's no reason for them to accept a Pac-10 invite on their own before Texas has decided.

 

Hopefully A&M jumps to the SEC tomorrow so we can get the ball moving again.

[Exile on Waveland]

Just out of curiosity, how is everyone here assessing academic prestige?

 

Because I hear a lot about schools like KU not being a fit in the PAC 10 when they're rated above 5 of the existing schools per US News.

 

And I hear a lot about schools like MU being academically too good for the SEC, when 5 of the 12 schools currently in the SEC rank above Mizzou in the current US News rankings, with Tennessee and South Carolina coming in just after them.

 

Are we dismissing those rankings because they're a joke? If so, what's the basis for evaluating?

 

 

btw, here are the USNWR rankings by conference:

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2009/03/03/college-rankings-by-athletic-conference.html

 

I'm not really answering your question.

 

However, to say the Pac 10 is an academically strong conference isn't the entire story. It rivals South Africa for inequality from best/richest to worst/poorest. At the top, it's possibly to probably the strongest power conference academically. From top to bottom, it completely lacks depth. It has four outstanding universities (Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC), one very good (Washington), four decent/average (Arizona, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona State) and one poor (Oregon State).

 

I see absolutely no reason Kansas wouldn't fit academically, especially when the conference is considering Texas freakin' Tech (and Okie State for that matter).

[RedFlash]

http://tamu.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=15&tid=144013790&mid=144013790&sid=893&style=2

 

Just one person's theory, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if all the parties involved (Pac 10/Big 10/UTX/ABC-ESPN) are in bed with each other.

 

If any part of this theory is true (and let's face the author is implying that the future of college football is in the hands of Texas A&M :-k ) I hope A&M screws them all and accepts the invite to the SEC. Provided if any part of that theory is true.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Just out of curiosity, how is everyone here assessing academic prestige?

 

Because I hear a lot about schools like KU not being a fit in the PAC 10 when they're rated above 5 of the existing schools per US News.

 

And I hear a lot about schools like MU being academically too good for the SEC, when 5 of the 12 schools currently in the SEC rank above Mizzou in the current US News rankings, with Tennessee and South Carolina coming in just after them.

 

Are we dismissing those rankings because they're a joke? If so, what's the basis for evaluating?

 

 

btw, here are the USNWR rankings by conference:

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2009/03/03/college-rankings-by-athletic-conference.html

 

I wish I had a better grasp of academic rankings, because I don't get them at all.

 

I feel like a school like Mizzou that has the top Journalism program in the country, is one of six public universities with a law, med and vet school on the same campus, a land grant university, one of 34 schools in the country to be both an AAU school and a Doctoral/Research extensive university would have more academic prestige than what it has according to the USNWR, but it doesn't and I don't really understand the details to know why. Maybe every school ahead of them is more impressive than that, I don't know at all.

[ConstableRabbit]

The problem with the US News rankings is the factors they take into consideration. A big point of contention at Northwestern with the rankings is that they take into account the percentage of alumni who donate. I have no idea why.

 

I'm inclined to believe the rankings are fairly indicative of how good a school is, but I don't think they're perfect.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Missouri fans may appreciate this rumor...and it is only a rumor.

 

I heard the SEC (if aTM chooses to split from Texas and join) would then seek to add Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill to the east and aTM and Missouri (or possibly Kansas) to the west.

 

That would make them not only the premiere football conference but also the top basketball conference as well. Rumor has it that UNC is interested, especially if Duke is willing to come along. Take all of that with a huge grain (hell make it a lump) of salt, but I heard it from an LSU booster who has some other connections throughout the SEC.

[RedFlash]

Missouri fans may appreciate this rumor...and it is only a rumor.

 

I heard the SEC (if aTM chooses to split from Texas and join) would then seek to add Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill to the east and aTM and Missouri (or possibly Kansas) to the west.

 

That would make them not only the premiere football conference but also the top basketball conference as well. Rumor has it that UNC is interested, especially if Duke is willing to come along. Take all of that with a huge grain (hell make it a lump) of salt, but I heard it from an LSU booster who has some other connections throughout the SEC.

 

I've heard that same rumor (Duke/UNC) from the many college football sites I visit. The gut feeling is that there is a REAL possibility that Duke/UNC coud come to the SEC for the reverse reason why the SEC wants them to come. Duke/UNC would come to the SEC for the football prestige, whereas the SEC wants them for their basketbal prestige.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Missouri fans may appreciate this rumor...and it is only a rumor.

 

I heard the SEC (if aTM chooses to split from Texas and join) would then seek to add Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill to the east and aTM and Missouri (or possibly Kansas) to the west.

 

That would make them not only the premiere football conference but also the top basketball conference as well. Rumor has it that UNC is interested, especially if Duke is willing to come along. Take all of that with a huge grain (hell make it a lump) of salt, but I heard it from an LSU booster who has some other connections throughout the SEC.

 

I've heard that same rumor (Duke/UNC) from the many college football sites I visit. The gut feeling is that there is a REAL possibility that Duke/UNC coud come to the SEC for the reverse reason why the SEC wants them to come. Duke/UNC would come to the SEC for the football prestige, whereas the SEC wants them for their basketbal prestige.

 

Also, adding Duke, UNC, and aTm would greatly increase the academic prestige as well.

[RedFlash]

Missouri fans may appreciate this rumor...and it is only a rumor.

 

I heard the SEC (if aTM chooses to split from Texas and join) would then seek to add Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill to the east and aTM and Missouri (or possibly Kansas) to the west.

 

That would make them not only the premiere football conference but also the top basketball conference as well. Rumor has it that UNC is interested, especially if Duke is willing to come along. Take all of that with a huge grain (hell make it a lump) of salt, but I heard it from an LSU booster who has some other connections throughout the SEC.

 

I've heard that same rumor (Duke/UNC) from the many college football sites I visit. The gut feeling is that there is a REAL possibility that Duke/UNC coud come to the SEC for the reverse reason why the SEC wants them to come. Duke/UNC would come to the SEC for the football prestige, whereas the SEC wants them for their basketbal prestige.

 

Also, adding Duke, UNC, and aTm would greatly increase the academic prestige as well.

 

Yessir.

[inari]

Just out of curiosity, how is everyone here assessing academic prestige?

 

Because I hear a lot about schools like KU not being a fit in the PAC 10 when they're rated above 5 of the existing schools per US News.

 

And I hear a lot about schools like MU being academically too good for the SEC, when 5 of the 12 schools currently in the SEC rank above Mizzou in the current US News rankings, with Tennessee and South Carolina coming in just after them.

 

Are we dismissing those rankings because they're a joke? If so, what's the basis for evaluating?

 

 

btw, here are the USNWR rankings by conference:

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2009/03/03/college-rankings-by-athletic-conference.html

 

I'm not really answering your question.

 

However, to say the Pac 10 is an academically strong conference isn't the entire story. It rivals South Africa for inequality from best/richest to worst/poorest. At the top, it's possibly to probably the strongest power conference academically. From top to bottom, it completely lacks depth. It has four outstanding universities (Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC), one very good (Washington), four decent/average (Arizona, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona State) and one poor (Oregon State).

 

I see absolutely no reason Kansas wouldn't fit academically, especially when the conference is considering Texas freakin' Tech (and Okie State for that matter).

 

What's so bad about Oregon State?

[snoodmonger]

Just out of curiosity, how is everyone here assessing academic prestige?

 

Because I hear a lot about schools like KU not being a fit in the PAC 10 when they're rated above 5 of the existing schools per US News.

 

And I hear a lot about schools like MU being academically too good for the SEC, when 5 of the 12 schools currently in the SEC rank above Mizzou in the current US News rankings, with Tennessee and South Carolina coming in just after them.

 

Are we dismissing those rankings because they're a joke? If so, what's the basis for evaluating?

 

 

btw, here are the USNWR rankings by conference:

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2009/03/03/college-rankings-by-athletic-conference.html

 

I'm not really answering your question.

 

However, to say the Pac 10 is an academically strong conference isn't the entire story. It rivals South Africa for inequality from best/richest to worst/poorest. At the top, it's possibly to probably the strongest power conference academically. From top to bottom, it completely lacks depth. It has four outstanding universities (Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC), one very good (Washington), four decent/average (Arizona, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona State) and one poor (Oregon State).

 

I see absolutely no reason Kansas wouldn't fit academically, especially when the conference is considering Texas freakin' Tech (and Okie State for that matter).

 

What's so bad about Oregon State?

 

According to USNWR, they're a tier 3 institution.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Just out of curiosity, how is everyone here assessing academic prestige?

 

Because I hear a lot about schools like KU not being a fit in the PAC 10 when they're rated above 5 of the existing schools per US News.

 

And I hear a lot about schools like MU being academically too good for the SEC, when 5 of the 12 schools currently in the SEC rank above Mizzou in the current US News rankings, with Tennessee and South Carolina coming in just after them.

 

Are we dismissing those rankings because they're a joke? If so, what's the basis for evaluating?

 

 

btw, here are the USNWR rankings by conference:

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2009/03/03/college-rankings-by-athletic-conference.html

 

I'm not really answering your question.

 

However, to say the Pac 10 is an academically strong conference isn't the entire story. It rivals South Africa for inequality from best/richest to worst/poorest. At the top, it's possibly to probably the strongest power conference academically. From top to bottom, it completely lacks depth. It has four outstanding universities (Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC), one very good (Washington), four decent/average (Arizona, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona State) and one poor (Oregon State).

 

I see absolutely no reason Kansas wouldn't fit academically, especially when the conference is considering Texas freakin' Tech (and Okie State for that matter).

 

What's so bad about Oregon State?

 

According to USNWR, they're a tier 3 institution.

 

Snood, how would you feel about Kansas in the SEC with aTm, UNC, and Duke?

[Magnetic Curses]

Just out of curiosity, how is everyone here assessing academic prestige?

 

Because I hear a lot about schools like KU not being a fit in the PAC 10 when they're rated above 5 of the existing schools per US News.

 

And I hear a lot about schools like MU being academically too good for the SEC, when 5 of the 12 schools currently in the SEC rank above Mizzou in the current US News rankings, with Tennessee and South Carolina coming in just after them.

 

Are we dismissing those rankings because they're a joke? If so, what's the basis for evaluating?

 

 

btw, here are the USNWR rankings by conference:

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2009/03/03/college-rankings-by-athletic-conference.html

 

I'm not really answering your question.

 

However, to say the Pac 10 is an academically strong conference isn't the entire story. It rivals South Africa for inequality from best/richest to worst/poorest. At the top, it's possibly to probably the strongest power conference academically. From top to bottom, it completely lacks depth. It has four outstanding universities (Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC), one very good (Washington), four decent/average (Arizona, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona State) and one poor (Oregon State).

 

I see absolutely no reason Kansas wouldn't fit academically, especially when the conference is considering Texas freakin' Tech (and Okie State for that matter).

 

What's so bad about Oregon State?

 

According to USNWR, they're a tier 3 institution.

 

so are ole miss and miss st.

[snoodmonger]

Just out of curiosity, how is everyone here assessing academic prestige?

 

Because I hear a lot about schools like KU not being a fit in the PAC 10 when they're rated above 5 of the existing schools per US News.

 

And I hear a lot about schools like MU being academically too good for the SEC, when 5 of the 12 schools currently in the SEC rank above Mizzou in the current US News rankings, with Tennessee and South Carolina coming in just after them.

 

Are we dismissing those rankings because they're a joke? If so, what's the basis for evaluating?

 

 

btw, here are the USNWR rankings by conference:

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2009/03/03/college-rankings-by-athletic-conference.html

 

I'm not really answering your question.

 

However, to say the Pac 10 is an academically strong conference isn't the entire story. It rivals South Africa for inequality from best/richest to worst/poorest. At the top, it's possibly to probably the strongest power conference academically. From top to bottom, it completely lacks depth. It has four outstanding universities (Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC), one very good (Washington), four decent/average (Arizona, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona State) and one poor (Oregon State).

 

I see absolutely no reason Kansas wouldn't fit academically, especially when the conference is considering Texas freakin' Tech (and Okie State for that matter).

 

What's so bad about Oregon State?

 

According to USNWR, they're a tier 3 institution.

 

Snood, how would you feel about Kansas in the SEC with aTm, UNC, and Duke?

 

I feel like we'd probably never play in another bowl game for the rest of my life. And that would suck, because I really want KU to develop a football program. The hoops would be bananas, though.

[Guest]

Just out of curiosity, how is everyone here assessing academic prestige?

 

Because I hear a lot about schools like KU not being a fit in the PAC 10 when they're rated above 5 of the existing schools per US News.

 

And I hear a lot about schools like MU being academically too good for the SEC, when 5 of the 12 schools currently in the SEC rank above Mizzou in the current US News rankings, with Tennessee and South Carolina coming in just after them.

 

Are we dismissing those rankings because they're a joke? If so, what's the basis for evaluating?

 

 

btw, here are the USNWR rankings by conference:

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2009/03/03/college-rankings-by-athletic-conference.html

 

I'm not really answering your question.

 

However, to say the Pac 10 is an academically strong conference isn't the entire story. It rivals South Africa for inequality from best/richest to worst/poorest. At the top, it's possibly to probably the strongest power conference academically. From top to bottom, it completely lacks depth. It has four outstanding universities (Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC), one very good (Washington), four decent/average (Arizona, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona State) and one poor (Oregon State).

 

I see absolutely no reason Kansas wouldn't fit academically, especially when the conference is considering Texas freakin' Tech (and Okie State for that matter).

 

What's so bad about Oregon State?

 

According to USNWR, they're a tier 3 institution.

 

Not sure where Exile is getting his breakdown but I've always gotten the impression ASU and WSU were just as poor as OSU. And similarly, I thought UW was up there with the 4 California schools. Again, just an impression from talking to people. No actual statistical backing for it.

 

The key to the Pac-10 is the quality of the research at the college (but you know they'll take a school if the money is there).

[TruffleShuffle]

duke and unc are basketball schools and basketball schools are not leaving the acc.

[Guest]

duke and unc are basketball schools and basketball schools are not leaving the acc.

 

So they'd turn down millions of dollars and the chance to play in a better basketball conference because they are basketball schools?

[snoodmonger]

the real question is does it benefit any of them from a hoops perspective?

 

I'm not really sure it's a benefit to the Big East schools to run the hoops gauntlet they have to do every year.

 

And the ACC has a pretty nice football TV package as it is.

Edited June 14, 2010 by snoodmonger

[OleMissCub]

duke and unc are basketball schools and basketball schools are not leaving the acc.

 

uhhhh, ok

[CubColtPacer]

And the other question is does the SEC want to lose its distinction of the best football conference? They lose a lot of credibility by adding 4 mediocre to worse schools to the conference.

[TruffleShuffle]

duke and unc are basketball schools and basketball schools are not leaving the acc.

 

So they'd turn down millions of dollars and the chance to play in a better basketball conference because they are basketball schools?

 

the sec sucks at basketball

[Jon]

I don't have a ton going on at work this week, which sets up great for wasting more days following expansion talk. Except for an all-day commitment Wednesday. Bad timing there.

 

Any Notre Dame fans know if there has been much talk on ND boards about the Big East breakup rule that was put into place in 2003? There's certainly no way Notre Dame sacrifices their other sports just to remain independent in football.

[OleMissCub]

And the other question is does the SEC want to lose its distinction of the best football conference? They lose a lot of credibility by adding 4 mediocre to worse schools to the conference.

 

this is true, but in the end they are gonna do whatever they can to keep up with the Jones'

 

our only real bottom feeder in football is Vandy and maybe Kentucky, and they aren't really a given to beat when you play them.

[da bears]

ugh, this sucks so much ass. this wait to find out where mizzou is gonna land just blows.