Printable View
Read the post I was responding to dipshit. LOL, you can't be that stupid. And Mobil isn't a town at all. It's an Oil and Gas company. Come on Tyler, weren't you in that business?? No more drinking and posting for you. UCF is in Orlando not Miami.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Whoaaaa there cowgirl!! Don't get too excited now. You know what I meant.....with your poor pro football cowboy analogy being off the mark. BTW, aren't there rules per your verbage above? :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
ESPN reported last night that Texas was considering going independent, but didn't really believe they would do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston Techsan
You can count on one hand the number of teams that are capable of going it alone. UT is one of them. ND (obviously!), and maybe Florida, Alabama, or Ohio State. But I agree with ESPN, I cannot believe they would do that.
Maybe Bama and Texas, but not Florida and CERTAINLY not Ohio State. Ohio State sucks worse than ND, but they do continue to be the media darling every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
USC could too
Unlike Notre Dame, the University of Texas (at Austin)....is a STATE University. Meaning State Funded. Meaning accountable to the Legislature.
They will not do anything without the concurrence of the Texas State Legislature or they risk losing HUGE HUGE HUGE annual funding. This is exactly why they joined the Big12 in 1995 instead of heading off to the PAC10 with A&M heading off to the SEC. Those deals were done in prinicipal, but the legislature put the brakes on because at the time there were some powerful Baylor and Tech alums in office.
Therefore, I have trouble seeing the Longhorns going independent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbone1
No, I do not think they will either. I just meant that they probably have the resources (fan base, markets, $$$$) to do so if the legislature allowed them to. Same with the others. USC...maybe. I read something not too long ago that made me think they were not as well off as a lot of us thought they were.
I'm sure they'd love to.
They'd rake in a significant TV deal and would probably do well in marketing too. Plus no sharing of Bowl Revenues.
They'd also probably schedule home games against the Sister Mary School for the blind.
The Big 12 commish may push for member loyality pledges before the start of the football season:
http://www.huskerextra.com/articles/...0956166083.txt
Not sure that would really mean anything though.
Interesting article.
I don't think the Nebraska folks have ever been comfortable playing second fiddle to Texas and Oklahoma....which is how things work in the Big12.
Until they are winning consistently, they will be second fiddler whatever conference they are in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbone1
USC is the only school I can think of in America that would be BETTER OFF as an independent. That pathetic, puke, PAC10 conference doesn't do them any favors. It's truly USC and the 9 dwarfs (...kinda like Boise and the WAC. :icon_wink: )Quote:
Originally Posted by okiealdawg
HD
It will be interesting to see the penalties USC receives this Friday from the NCAA in football and basketball.
I think the reason USC is so strong in the south California is the lack of a NFL team for the past 20 years. USC has probably always been popular but since the Rams and Raiders left for St. Louis and Oakland, USC become the adopted NFL team for L.A.
Plus they have no salary cap :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgFight71
Deja Vu all over again. WAC commish Thompson had the WAC sign loyalty pledges right before the EWAC crumbled, and if I recall, all or most of the deserters signed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
These things are not worth the paper they are printed on, and I guess they all sign with disapprearing ink in the pen!
I'll be suprised if anything of true significance comes down. They may tell them to vacate some past wins....but what does that really do to slow down a school like USC that is a freight train of momentum.Quote:
Originally Posted by BRDawg81
Same with Oklahoma and their consistent cheating. There's a pattern over years and years of blatant disregard for NCAA rules. But nothing of consequence ever happens to them.
Same thing with Alabama back in the late 90's, I believe they committed penalties that could of warranted the "death penalty" that SMU got in the 80's but they didn't get it because they are Alabama. The rich just keep getting richer.
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgFight71
The NCAA is toothless when it comes to the big boys.
I'm gonna let that one go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbone1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Interesting back in the day EVERY school paid/incentivized players. SMU got punished...Texas, Alabama, Nebraska didn'tQuote:
Originally Posted by DawgFight71
That is a good point!Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgFight71
Sometimes a mercy kill is warranted. But I appreciate the free pass this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
I am about 99% sure Mizzou is gone:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...html?eref=sihp
I figure the only way they do not go is if they are not asked.
Sounds like a done deal to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
My thoughts:Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
Pac 16 - takes 6 from the big 12
MWC 16 - takes 1 from wac takes 4 from big 12 takes 2 from CUSA
SEC 16 - takes 4 from acc
ACC 16 - takes 4 from Big East
Big 16 - takes 2 from big 12 takes 3 from big east
CUSA 16 - takes 1 from big east 1 from Mac 1 from wac and 3 from Sunbelt
MAC stays at 14
WAC and Sunbelt merge with 13 and offers to UTSA to eventually form 14 team league
Big East no longer has football
Big 12 no longer exists
5 BCS bowls with the cotton bowl & chick fil a bowls + a national championship game
+1 playoff system is implemented
top 10 bcs ranked teams earn the bids no more auto qualification
The scenario that Tyler lays out could easily take place. I could see CUSA losing 2 but then adding 6. They would be sharing money 4 more ways but saving a bundle on travel. Terry Holland, the AD at ECU, has been a proponent of an expanded league for many years.Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerdawg
I could also see the WAC and SunBelt add FCS schools. I have been told in the past few months that if necessary the NCAA would grant waivers to allow schools to move up to FBS if it meant a conference needed the membership numbers to survive.
I'm still pulling for this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
To heck with being in the full group of CUSA schools. I want to be with the Big 12 remnants and a few of the eastern CUSA teams! Both sets will want a Louisiana universities in their mix.
Iowa St
Kansas
Kansas St
Tulsa
SMU
UTEP
Baylor
Houston
RICE
USM
La Tech
Tulane
http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showt...24455#poststop
Soooo, looking back at the opportunities we had to get one and ones with Baylor and one of the Kansas schools a few years back under a previous AD, could we have raised our chances of getting into that group?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerdawg
I think you are dead on in this scenario. The BE is done as a football conference, absorbed by the Big 11 and ACC. The Big 12 will certainly not exist in its current state.
The question is, does the Big 12 retain the name and AQ status if there are only 4-5 of them remaining and they add schools from the MWC and CUSA?
UPDATE:
Selected readings for today -
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...SPQN1DPK0U.DTL
Funny article! Best quote: "Texas, for one, can do essentially whatever it wants, including eat the entire Sun Belt Conference if it likes."
http://www.examiner.com/x-30425-Coll...for-mass-chaos
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/spo...inse-near.html
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...ansion-unfolds
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...e+of+expansion
Dam good looking conferenceQuote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Hookdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
I think the timing is the key to all of this. If the Big 12 were to lose six members in the next week or so and the Big 10 sticks to its plans and does not vote on expansion for another 6-12 months, then the Big 12 will survive.
Nebraska and Missouri will be in the Big 12 will no invitations to go elsewhere for perhaps at least the rest of 2010. The Big 12 then survives and invites a combination of MWC and CUSA schools. It will almost certainly grab BYU, Utah and TCU, along with Houston and two other schools and will retain its AQ status.
Even if it eventually loses Nebraska and Missouri, given Kansas' recent football success, paired with the MWC schools, it would retain its AQ status.
If the Big 10 votes to expand and invites Nebraska and Missouri at its meetings this week (which Big 10 commish Jim Delany says they will not do), and the Big 12 goes down to 4 members, those four will likely end up in the Mountain West. It then almost certainly becomes an AQ conference.
The survival of the Mountain West may rest with what the Big 10 does or does not do by June 30. If I was Boise State, I would seriously wait under June 30 to give the MWC a decision on their upcoming invitation.
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com...ook-texas.html
Wow! Columbus Dispatch obtains Ohio State e-mails.
There's no more debating it: Big Ten officials have peered deep in the heart of Texas for a potential expansion partner.
E-mails obtained by the Columbus Dispatch through a public-records request also revealed that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany told Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee that the league is "fast-tracking it."
After Gee praised Delany via email for his "brilliant presentation" to Big Ten school officials at an April 18 Association of American Universities meeting, Delany replied: "We are fast-tracking it but need to know the $ and observe contracts. Also need to make sure we leverage this to increase chances of hr (likely, "home run") additions. Finally double chess # of moving parts including not harming brand as we execute."
Also,
Another Gee e-mail indicates that the league wants to move quickly. Gee wrote to Delany on April 19 that Gee is "of the mind that we control our destiny at the moment, but the window will soon close on us. Agility and swiftness of foot is our friend."
Big Ten presidents and chancellors will huddle Sunday at conference headquarters in Park Ridge. Delany has said that "no votes" will be taken related to expansion.
As for the Big Ten's interest in Texas, Gee e-mailed Delany on April 20 to say: "I did speak with (President) Bill Powers at Texas, who would welcome a call to say they have a 'Tech' problem."
An Ohio State official declined to tell the Dispatch exactly what that meant, but it could refer to the fact that Texas Tech is not a member of the AAU. There's a belief that Texas, if it left the Big 12, would want to remain in the same league as Texas Tech and Texas A&M.
The race for Texas begins!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
and if the SEC does not get Texas or aTm they are the real losers in this deal...none of the eastern teams they would want bring in any more tv sets.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDynamic
I just wouldn't be surprised if Texas and aTm go their separate ways. They both offer strong access to the Texas media markets in their own right without the other. Texas has a history of looking north and west so I can see them going either Big 10 or PAC 10; aTm has looked toward the east & the SEC. Should they go their separate ways, continuing to play each other as one of their OOCs makes good sense/cents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
Very true, but if the Pac 10 does something soon, the Big 11 will not wait that long to pull the trigger. Unless the Pac 10 waits right until the 30 June deadline to announce it so that the other conferences cannot respond or expand for another year. Even if the Big 12 were to remain on the sideline for a while, I doubt the SEC would. When one goes, they all go...
So Texas just sits back and waits for the winning bid from amongst the Pac 10, Big 11, and SEC to emerge. Must be nice!
Wonder how much the WAC can ante up... :laugh:
http://www.newsok.com/is-nebraska-on...ad_story_title
Berry Tramel of the Daily Oklahoman points out this is not about Texas but about Nebraska. Very good column.
When Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe emerged from a presidents meeting Friday and talked about a "process" by which the league will decide how to sort the dalliances of some schools with the Big Ten, what he meant was, Nebraska has been called out.
I don't know for sure. I wasn't in the room. But I've talked to people who know what they're talking about. And this is about Nebraska.
This isn't about Missouri. Nobody cares about Missouri. Stay, go, drop football, get mad all over again that the Insight Bowl invited Iowa State. Doesn't matter.
If only Missouri leaves the Big 12, the league is fine. Heck, the league thrives. TV revenues wouldn't go down, plus there's one less mouth to feed. Heck, the NCAA might even give the Big 12 a waiver and let it keep the football championship game.
This is about Nebraska. Everybody cares about Nebraska. Nebraska helps make the league go. Without Nebraska, Texas' and Oklahoma's enthusiasm for the Big 12 wanes.
Which is why I believe Beebe gave Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman a deadline Friday. Stake your claim. Are you with the Big 12 or not? Are you staying or are you waffling?
I don't know if the deadline is next week or next year, though I've got to believe it's closer to the former.
Huskers and Tigers given their ultimatum:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5257088
I am guessing that this will speed up the Big 11 decision making process.
Here is a different and pretty interesting view of what Colorado should do:
http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_15236809
This guy sounds like a Colo.St grad.:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
It's pretty clear by advocating the Buffs go to the Mountain West, Mr. Kiszsla doesn't understand the basic economics of this deal. It's not just about a little bid of money, it's about a lot of money. If CAA is telling the Pac 10 a conference with 16 teams that includes the schools being mentioned can generate anywhere close to Big 10 type TV revenue, it would means tens of millions more dollars per year to CU. Not millions, tens of millions.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
The Mountain West's TV deals are up in 2014. They will likely be an AQ league. Even if they can put together a really nice package - somewhere along the lines of what most Big 12 schools get today, around $8 million per year by 2016 - it's a far cry from what the PAC 16 will be getting.
Remember, the Big 10 expects to be paying out $40 million per school in TV revenue alone by 2015-2016.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports...ith-expansion/
If the Pac 16 can generate 75% of that number by 2016, $30 million per year, it's still at least $20 million more than what the Mountain West is going to be paying out per school. That's $200 million more over a 10-year period. And if you're thinking about travel. Take $100,000 out of that extra $1.7 million per month and fly charter everywhere. Every team in every sport to every game that requires more than a five-hour drive.
I'll say this - if one of these schools is not interested, Kansas or Baylor would gladly take their place.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/po...ne-tressel-met
So Osborne secretly met with Tressel. What's funny is the fact on April 19 many of Nebraska's fans were saying there was no way their school would have any interest in the Big 10. On that day, their AD was meeting with one of the Big 10's main players.
The other thing I find interesting in all of this is the fact on May 10 Big 12 commish Dan Beebe told his member schools via e-mail that Big 10 commish Jim Delany told him the Big 10 was not fast tracking expansion - they were staying with a 12 to 18 month timetable. But in the e-mails obtained on Friday by the Columbus Dispatch, Delany exchanged e-mails with Ohio State president Gordon Gee on April 18 talking about the fact they were doing just that - fast tracking their expansion timeline.
So Delany lied directly to both the Chicago Tribune when they interviewed him about it on April 17 and Beebe on May 10 when he passed what Delany told him on to his member ADs.
The big question to me is why Texas would want to join the PAC-10. They're the richest school in the country. They made 135 million last year. Why would they not want to keep the Big 12 together? Why would they want to join a conference that does nothing but increase their travel?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
Man, its really starting to look bad for those of us not in an AQ conference. Other than filing anti-trust lawsuits, I don't see that there's much we can do about it. Will this eliminate any differentiation between the WAC, MAC, CUSA, and the Sunbelt? I fear that we'll all become equally irrelevant as far as football is concerned. How depressing is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Because they make more money. Tons of it. Or at least that is what they are promised.
The sky's not falling yet man! We've never been so close to our possible next step upward!Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
It also might be to actually separate themselves from the Baylor, ISt, TTech and KSt types much like they did from SMU/TCU/Rice/Houston etc... And they might go it alone to finally ditch A&M and OK. Who knows but their ego is flamed up and their still PO'd about not getting in the BCS game and championship few years back.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
I agree! There is a very wide range as to how we finally end up. I am hopeful that it is on the upper end. We just have to wait and see. I am cautiously optimistic that this is going to turn out better for us than any of us could have imagined six months ago.
I keep thinking back to quotes from both DD and BDVD each saying something to the effect that we should be shooting higher than CUSA. I don't know if there was anything to it but it would be a nice thought.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
Texas doesn't need more money, they'd rather have championships. Here's my latest guess. Nebraska and Missouri jump to the Big 10. Texas stays in the Big 12 and so do the other 9 teams. The big 12 takes BYU and Utah to go back to 12. The MWC takes Boise, Fresno and Nevada to go to 10, but, TCU decides that since Utah and BYU have left and the MWC has added 3 teams outside the footprint of the MWC that has increased their travel, they decide to go back to CUSA. The new CUSA consist of Tulsa, TCU, SMU, Houston, Rice, UTEP, Tulane, USM, La Tech, and UAB. ECU, UCF, and Memphis go to the Big East. The PAC 10 doesn't add anybody after Texas turns them down.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
There will always be differentiation in the level of play between say, CUSA and the Sunbelt. But with regard to television, yeah, it could get really ugly for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
TCU will NOT willingly rejoin CUSA as long as SMU is a member. And CUSA will get back up to at least 12 members to keep a championship game.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
I think things west of the Mississippi change dramatically but it doesn't go nuclear. The 16 team mega conferences don't happen, at least not yet. Right now its too big a pill to swallow.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Big 10: Picks up Nebraska and Missouri plus one team from either the ACC or Big East to get to 14 teams. Since the situation in the west doesn't go nuclear (16 team conferences) Notre Dame stays independent. Big 10 divides into divisions and has a championship game.
Big 12/PAC 10: Big 12 doesn't implode. Picks up BYU and Utah from the MWC to stay at 12. Signs a cooperative agreement with PAC 10, who can't agree on who to bring in for a 12 team conference. The money is good enough to keep everyone else in the Big 12. PAC 10 requests and receives an NCAA waiver for a 10 member football conference championship.
But these two conferences are the key to everything. If the result is a new 16 team conference, all bets are off and this post is irrelevent to say the least. Again, I just don't think the 16 team mega conference will happen...at least not yet.
MWC: Picks up Boise & Utah St to replace BYU & Utah but pushes to 10 or 12 depending on if they can get a waiver for a 10 team conference championship. They pick up Houston to get to 10. To get to 12 they add Fresno & UTEP. MWC becomes an AQ conference. But Big East doesn't lose AQ status for fear of lawsuits. BCS works it out.
CUSA: Depending on what MWC does, adds at least La Tech to replace Houston. Picks up North Texas if MWC goes to 12 by picking up UTEP. Loses at least ECU in the east and picks up a team not as far east as ECU to stay at 12. Additional changes to the east side of CUSA depends on what ACC and Big East do which, in part, depends on the SEC.
SEC: Says it prefers to stay like it is but will react if the issue is forced. The Big 10 changes aren't dramatic enough for them to pull the trigger on going to 14 let alone 16. Texas A&M is something of a wild card here but I think they stay put for now, so the SEC stands pat.
WAC/Sunbelt: Cover their losses, which for the WAC is massive, but survive. Benson keeps the paycheck.
If it breaks out this way then things will be quiet for a while, but it won't be over. It will take a while longer (5 years?) for the idea of the mega conferences to become a possibility. We need to use the time to push as hard as we can to get to the point where we can be on the right side of that change.
Fair assessment..... I could see it shaking out this way. I think losing Utah would be a big blow for MWC, though, and there chances of AQ. Boise helps, but a Boise, Utah, and TCU REALLY help.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenacious_dog
With the MWC delaying their invite of Boise St till later in the month - makes me think the West goes nuclear....
Thompson is probably one of the smartest commissioners in the nation and they KNOW something is up and that Texas and other Big XII schools to the PAC10 has some serious legs to it - if not they would be inviting Boise TODAY -
He KNOWS they (MWC) could end up with CU, KU, KState, ISU, Baylor and or any combination of those schools in addition to Boise St -
Basically any of these programs could trump Boise...
Very very interesting -
Discussion of the Tech (Texas) problem:
http://news.collegesportsinfo.com/20...explained.html
When's the last time you heard a rich man say he didn't need any more money?Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
Losing the St. Louis and Kansas City markets doesn't hurt? The Big 10 wouldn't be interested if Missouri didn't bring something to the table.
I think the problem with Missouri is their admin has been very fickle over the years. Plus they haven't been a top drawer program athletically. The Big 12 feels they more than make up for what they lose in Missouri if they hang together and make the deal with the PAC 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
Missouri fits the bill for the Big 10 academically, which is a big deal with them, and they are acceptable athletically. Ohio State won't mind having another team in the conference they can whip up on.
More than likely, Missouri gets a soft landing no matter what happens.
You're absolutely right about Boise if it goes nuclear out west. Until that gets settled, it makes sense for the MWC to keep their powder dry for the time being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
I'll bet the Boise admin is massively bent if this gets put on hold. For all they've done, they still haven't developed enough gravity on their own.
Baylor fights back!
"Baylor continues to make a major push to be part of any Pac-10 expansion plan with its fellow South members (Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State). In a Twitter post, Pete Thamel of the New York Times reported that Baylor "appears to have bumped" Colorado in the expansion sweepstakes."
Baylor's academics --and political clout-- seem to be winning over the PAC 10 crowd.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....793f801a.html
The scuttlebutt in Texas is that the PAC 10 is more concerned with Texas Tech's academics (or lack thereof) than they are with any concerns about Baylor. Apparently Baylor's academic profile fits nicely in the PAC 10.
HD
More.............
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...e.1ada11c.html
HD
I don't know anybody that that made $135,000,000 last year. Everybody I know is going broke because they have their money invested in the stock market.Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
"While Baylor is working to secure its spot, one source familiar with the process indicated that some Pac-10 presidents might have concerns about the academic credentials of schools like Texas Tech and Oklahoma State."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...l.1accba0.html
HD
I do not have any inside sources but I am hearing the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Baylor is more attractive to the PAC10 due to academics and thier overall sports package.
Texas has as they stated in emails to Ohio State, a "Tech" problem.
It still might happen, but I do not see Cal, Stanford, Oregon, etc. voting for Baylor. They are somewhat more "acceptable" I suppose than BYU, but they still have a lot of baggage in the eyes of the left coast libs...
Baylor has the academics, but I don't see Baylor's Southern Baptists fitting in well with the Left Coast, much like BYU.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Baylor isn't Southern Baptist...hasn't been for a while.
They (CAL, Stanford, Oregon, etc...) won't have a choice. If they want Texas and Texas A&M, they are gonna have to take Baylor too. The Texas legislature is likely going to see to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
This is VERY smart politics on the part of the state of Texas. It's in the state of Texas' best interest to get as many schools as possible into the new PAC 16.
HD
Amidst concerns of a potential fundamentalist takeover, the university changed the terms of its charter in 1991 with the permission of the Texas legislature in order to establish a governance less directly dependent upon the Baptist General Convention of Texas. The Baptist General Convention of Texas continues to elect one-quarter of the members of the university's all Baptist Board of Regents, Baylor's governing board.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
http://pushpull.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/arte.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Baptists in the south do not equate to Southern Baptist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Baylor is a Texas Baptist school, not a Southern Baptist School. Many Texas Baptists are also Southern Baptist, but the SBC does not run Baylor in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Some of you really crack me up. Tech is just as conservative as Baylor, yet we've been a member of the WAC since 01 and I have yet to hear one disparaging word about our cultural differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
You don't know much about Baylor if you believe that.
Yeah, I second thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
Where have you been? Do you not read the board during Hawaii week?Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
Apples & Oranges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
First, Baylor isn't tied to Southern Baptist anymore. Also, Baylor is already an AQ school, whereas BYU is not. Frankly, BYU is still on the outside, looking in. On the other hand, Baylor is in, and trying to STAY in.
Secondly, BYU doesn't have TEXAS, TX A&M, and TX Tech carrying it along like Baylor does. Don't underestimate that.
In short, Baylor is an academic institution that has proven itself to be competitive in Men's Basketball (Elite 8), Women's Basketball (Final Four), Baseball (Big 12 Tournament Runnerup), Men's Tennis (Top 8), and several other sports, save for football.
HD
2009 Average Football AttendanceQuote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Baylor - 36,306
BYU - 64,236
2009 Football Massey Ratings
Baylor - 78
BYU - 13
2009-10 Average Men's Basketball Attendance
Baylor - 7,457
BYU - 14,029
2009-10 Men's Basketball Final RPI
Baylor - 8
BYU - 24
Media Market Rankings
Baylor - 95
BYU - 35
USNWR Academic Rankings
Baylor - 80
BYU - 71
BYU has a lot to offer. They double Baylor's football and basketball attendance, and they offer Top 25 football and basketball programs. They also offer Salt Lake City compared to Waco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
No one disputes that BYU has a ton of support in UTAH!!! Clearly they are the class of the MWC. They always have been. But......
Baylor = AQ
BYU = NOT
Baylor = Package deal with TX, TX A&M, & TX Tech
BYU = NOT
That's a powerful distinction. Don't underestimate the "package deal" concept. (Of course, if you don't live in Texas, I can certainly see why you wouldn't understand. It's "Political").
BTW, your media market rankings hurt your street cred, because you totally omitted the Dallas market from Baylor's media market. Baylor's main campus is only 90 miles from Dallas. Also, downtown Dallas is home to the Baylor School of Medicine, the Baylor School of Dentistry, and the Baylor School of Nursing. Baylor athletics clearly fit into the Dallas media market.
HD
Hogdawg, you are the only person that I know that cares about Baylor. FWIW.
Baylor College of Medicine is in Houston, and Baylor College of Dentistry is part of Texas A&M.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Sorry, I know this frustrates some of you guys....but I'm smart enough to see that Baylor has deep alumni connections in the state legislature in Texas, and has a history of flexing its muscle when needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
There's a lot of money associated with the Baylor name in Texas, including the schools of Medicine, Denistry and Nursing in Dallas. Baylor has much more clout than most "outsiders" realize. Baylor has an endowment of over $1 BILLION. But more importantly, unlike many states (including Louisiana) where jealousy often gets in the way of good business sense, the state of Texas is smart enough to fight to get an extra school in an AQ conference because they know it's good for business, good for education, and good for Texas.
I'm not saying it's a slam dunk that Baylor will be included in the new PAC 16, but I am saying it's going to be much tougher to leave Baylor out than most "outsiders" understand.
HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Elton John accepted a cool million to play El Rushbo's latest wedding - $$$$$$$, especially BIG BIG $$$$$, help soothe all differences -
Pretty sure BYU's endowment is over 500M.
I'm a huge Rush fan, but I have noticed a lisp as of late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
Where have you been? I've read post after post about how ultra baptist Baylor is not a good fit for the Pac 10. :icon_roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Because they don't think very highly of Baylor. Duh!Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
Oh, I didn't realize you had a direct line to the presidents and AD's, my bad. :icon_roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Never suggested that I did. :icon_roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
I believe you did. I want to see a direct quote/s from an AD or president and not some obscure blogger stating that they didn't think highly of Baylor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Eager Eagle, is that you?Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Very true. My oldest graduated from Baylor after his 1st year of college being at La Tech. And I can tell you that Baylor is not as conservative as you guys think. And that includes their religion/Bible classes that are not taught per Southern Baptist teachings. The Bible is taught as a pure textbook and piece of literature. Nothing else. We were very disappointed in what he learned there from that standpoint. We and he loved the school per everything else but the cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
In addition, the state of Texas really isn't in the south and for sure not the deep south per other comments on here.
Interesting thoughts on the whole Big 11/ND/Pac 16/Texas Tech/Colorado/Baylor/Big 12 mess...
http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the...sion_explainer
From this, sounds like ND is still on the fence so everything is still on the table.
Yes ND could mess it all up for us. If they go Big 11 the conference will stay put at 12. :bomb:Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
HogDawg, BYU could buy and sell Baylor 100 times over. They OWN an entire state. Don't mess with Mormons! :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
If you check out their fan boards, they are in total meltdown mode over the prospect of joining. The board may be split over whether to join or not, but it seems like the vast majority of their fans/alumni are in agreement that they should stay independent. I am not sure how much of that the board will take into account when they make the final decision. But I have heard that alumni are already threatening to withhold donations and other financial resources if they do join. That could throw up a stop sign for joining. If it does, then look for the nuclear button to be pushed by someone (Nebraska, Larry Scott, the SEC, etc.).
If the Big 11 stays at 12 with ND, I still think the BE adds teams to try to forestall the next round of realignments and to secure their place among the AQ conferences. So we could still get in, even if the Big 11 only adds ND. At least that is what I think right now...