|
![]() |
#91 |
Quit your bullshit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bored of winning
|
|
Posts: 41,870
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#92 |
Integralist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Murrieta, CA
|
The ACC idea is actually picking up some steam. Apparently there is a huge falling out between UT and OU. UT wants some sort of midwest pod to go to the ACC. Them, Tech, KU and MU is one proposal, a Texas quartet of UT, Baylor, Tech and Rice might be another. If they really want to put a dent in PAC expansion, they might consider MU, KU and KSU, the later used as leverage. That means the PAC would essentially be left with picking up the state of Oklahoma. Not at all what they were hoping. They want either the Texas markets or the Missouri markets to add to OU and OSU.
This means the KU-MU duo is actually pretty powerful. More so for MU because they can also play the SEC. This might even raise the interest of the B1G, who knows? One thing is clear, if A&M, OU and Texas all go to separate conferences, it opens up all kinds of opportunities for KU and MU, also possibly KSU. |
Posts: 3,875
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#93 |
.
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Thats one thing that is encouraging to me, if the south scatters to the winds, then suddenly KU might be caught in a bit of a bidding war and have some leverage. They don't have to worry about MU, but if they have a choice between 2 or 3 good choices, maybe they can ask them to accept KSU and see who says "ok, fine" first. Not because they are tied to KSU, but because they want to, and can.
|
Posts: 36,130
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#94 |
Quit your bullshit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bored of winning
|
I've heard that things between OU and UT are close to irrepairable. Evidently, Texas wanted solidarity with OU, and then they turned around and tried to broker a deal with the B!G and Notre Dame. OU got pissed off and is going their own way.
|
Posts: 41,870
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#95 |
Paladin
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Gator Country
|
Wow TAMU better come to the SEC. Baylor can go screw themselves.
|
Posts: 13,215
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#96 |
.
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
|
Posts: 36,130
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#97 |
Amateur Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
|
|
Posts: 15,298
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#98 | |
Paladin
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Gator Country
|
Quote:
I don't see what they are so worried about. Just how much money do they stand to lose? |
|
Posts: 13,215
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#99 |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Independence, Missouri
|
id be fine with any of the 3 conferences as long as texas doesn't follow
|
Posts: 1,519
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#100 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Tucson, AZ
|
Quote:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ig-ten-members Nebraska has it all to attract Big Ten, most importantly AAU membership They lost it shortly after the vote and the Big 10 was pissed. |
|
Posts: 24,799
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#101 |
Supporter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Tucson, AZ
|
That was the typical UA fan's reaction to the post too. Like I said, if a 2nd Texas school is needed to land Texas, Rice is being discussed by some in the Pac-10 office. And it's not initially about attendance, it's about regional cable networks first. And it's a long-shot.
|
Posts: 24,799
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#102 | |
PermaBanned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Jouissance
|
Quote:
Better qualify the bold. Certain factions in the Big 10 (read: the academics, who were never very important in the entire process) were pissed. It's all about money. Nothing more, nothing less. People bring up the other bullshit to try to fool themselves and make the whole thing appear more legitimate. |
|
Posts: 47,521
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#103 |
**** That Noise
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Jack Trice
|
Texas to the ACC isn't happening. That is just them bluffing to Oklahoma on their bluff to go Pac.
|
Posts: 15,058
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#104 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Tucson, AZ
|
Quote:
I mean, even at UNL the research budget is 2x the athletic department budget. And the athletic department is but 10% of the total budget. It's just absurd to suggest that academics aren't a factor. It's not the #1 factor, it's a #1a or #2 factor. |
|
Posts: 24,799
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#105 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Tucson, AZ
|
Quote:
And I fully understand why a sports fan outside of the day-to-day operations would overstate the value of the athletic department. It's the lense that sports fans see the University though. But trust me, you are wrong. Completely wrong. It's a basic function of math. The top universities don't just want to be seen as academically elite for the sake of reputation. Research and tuition are now the lifeblood of a University. The contribution from the athletic department, even among the very biggest programs, pales in comparison. Take UNL for example. Their athletic programs generates a profit. Approximately $10M/year of their $80M/year program goes back to the UNL general fund from the Athletic Department. Compare that to UNL's $132M research budget. Of that, typically 33% is "overhead", the university's cut to cover general fund expenses... that's $43M. Even at UNL, research generates 4x more revenue back to the University. If you look at a school like Arizona, the numbers are even more dramatic. They have a $600M/year research budget and only a $42M/year athletics budget. The same 33% holds and the athletics department generates even less (if anything) back to the university. It's more likely a $200M vs $0-$5M ratio. The view that sports fans have of the role of sports money is so skewed its remarkable. $200M vs (at best) $5M. |
|
Posts: 24,799
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
|