(02-13-2010 09:42 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 09:29 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 09:08 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 09:03 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  One PAC sports writer speculates that the Big Ten, by publicly indicating it might go to 14 and invite Pitt, Syracuse, and Rutgers, is really trying to get their primary target, Notre Dame. The BE would be devasted and Notre Dame would not have a conference to hide behind and continue to play as an independent. Public overtures to Texas accomplishes the same goal. It all makes a lot of sense. If ND joins Big Ten, then probably there is no conference realignment elsewhere.

The BigTen will NOT go to 14 with Cuse,Rutgers and Pitt. You really think that each of those schools would bring in 20 million in reveues to the league? 60 million from all three? Come on guys stop these posts that make no sense financially.
The ONLY schools that you can add to go to 14 and have a shot at ending better financially are ND and Texas. The rest will NOT bring in the 20 mill minimum.

Cuban Bull, the PAC sports writer is agreeing with you....the Big Ten really wants Notre Dame and the PAC sports writer is saying that the invitation to Texas and/or BE schools is smoke and mirrors...to get ND. I agree with the PAC sports writer as I don't think Texas U will go anywhere (you might want to check today's Dallas Morning News) as PAC and Big Ten geography is too distant. And I don't think adding a Rutgers, Syracuse, or Pitt will increase Big Ten payout per school.

I understand that, I guess I was just referring to all the previous posts about going to 16 and even someone saying 20 was the maximum number.
Certaintly the BigTen loses nothing by going after Texas. The Horns and Irish are the TWO big targets which would really impact a conferences revenue stream.
Texas will have many choices because they will also be a PacTen target and if the SEC thinks that Texas is really serious about moving they could offer both Texas and AM.
It will be interesting to see what happens but certaintly Texas has become the key piece in any movement and at least for now the Big12 seems to be in shakier grounds than the Big East. Losing Texas to any league would be a MAJOR blow to Big12

I am not going to speculate who is and who isn't on shakier ground. I think it is a highly complicated issue. Unfortunately, it is going to be a very interesting year or so.

(02-12-2010 11:21 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  SMU has the upper hand over Rice unless AAU membership is a requirement. SMU is not an AAU member or a "Tier One" Research school because SMU puts more of a focus on teaching than research.

If there is a choice between SMU and Rice geography will be the #1 concern. If the league has already picked TCU, then Rice would be picked next. If the league already has Houston, SMU would be the choice.

You are also continuing the logical fallacy that a university could be good at research, or good at teaching but not both. It's like saying a basketball player could be a good scorer, but then he automatically wouldn't be able to play defense. If you get a basketball player who can only do one of those things, he isn't going to make it in the NBA.

Rice is a research intensive school -that doesn't mean it's not an excellent undergraduate teaching school. Remember, these decisions are made by University presidents, not the captain of the cheer squad - and university presidents, especially in the PAC-10 and Big-10, want to be associated with other complete universities, not those who, by your own admission, neglect half of what universities are intended to do.

Quote: Make no mistake, SMU is still a very good university and that is reflected by the consistent "Tier One" rankings in US News and World Report (I don't agree with those ranking methods, but they are widely used).

SMU is not "Tier One" - they are "Top Tier". USNWR did away with Tier 1 and Tier 2 and lumped all those schools in the top tier. SMU has always been in the lower half of those "Top Tier" schools. If you don't like those rankings, feel free to look at the Carnegie Rankings, or the World University Rankings, or other non-us publisher based ranking system.

Quote:SMU also has an upper hand over Rice because SMU has shown a commitment to investing in athletics (the June Jones hire, etc.). Rice has the ability to do that as well, but Rice fans have posted on here before that they highly doubt that will ever occur.

And dropping their baseball team. And dropping their track and field team. And "investing" in athletics by unscrupulous methods which got them the death penalty. Hiring a $2Mil/year football coach doesn't offset the death penalty stigma. Also, SMU has a 32K seat football stadium and a dump of a basketball arena - Rice has a 47K (expandable to 70K) football stadium and a newly-refurbished dump of a basketball arena, to go with one of the premiere baseball facilities in the country. BCS conferences are going to want to have the ability to pack fans in, and skirting the D1 minimum on football stadium size isn't going to do that.

How Now Brown Owl,

That's a much more ignorant post than I ever expected from a Rice fan.

1) I did not propagate any such logical fallacy. In fact, you are the one propagating a logical fallacy when you state that SMU "neglect(s) half of what universities are intended to do."

2) US News and World Report rankings use "percentage of alumni giving" as a criteria, which is what keeps SMU in the 60s as opposed to the 40s. Numerous other rankings are available which give SMU high marks both for individual programs and for the university as a whole.

3) The Death Penalty was over 20 years ago. Since then, SMU has been one of the cleanest programs in Division I FBS. Ford Stadium is expandable to 45k and we have a 92k seat stadium less than 5 miles from campus. Rice will never be able to get 70k into Rice Stadium again due to low enrollment figures and lack of interest by the community (nothing wrong with this, it's an issue that SMU deals with too). Moody Coliseum will be "newly refurbished" soon - stay tuned.

4) As for BCS conferences wanting to have the ability to pack fans in:

Selected stadium capacities:

Wake Forest - 31,500
Duke - 33,941
Washington State - 35,117
Vanderbilt - 39,790
Connecticut - 40,000
Cincinnati - 35,097

Should I go on?

ACC is going to finish off the Big East. UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers will all jump to the ACC. Leaving UC,UL,USF, and WVU to find another league or bring in CUSA teams. A bunch of people on this board are saying that the leftovers from the B12 will join with the leftovers from the Big East and form a new conference. Do you really see Missouri, Nebraska, Texas Tech, Baylor, Iowa St, Kansas, and Kansas St. wanting to join with Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU and USF?

(02-12-2010 09:29 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  Warning long

That wasn't very long.

It seems that any expansion thread on any conference message board....turns ugly.

(02-13-2010 11:41 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  ACC is going to finish off the Big East. UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers will all jump to the ACC. Leaving UC,UL,USF, and WVU to find another league or bring in CUSA teams. A bunch of people on this board are saying that the leftovers from the B12 will join with the leftovers from the Big East and form a new conference. Do you really see Missouri, Nebraska, Texas Tech, Baylor, Iowa St, Kansas, and Kansas St. wanting to join with Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU and USF?

Only in your mind. Let me know how the ACC is feeling from their last expansion?
They added Miami,BC and VTech which trumps the new additions you are suggesting. Without the addition of a championship game.
There is NO WAY that the ACC expands to 16 and adds those four BE teams. Makes no sense financially.

(02-13-2010 11:56 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(02-12-2010 09:29 PM)Purplehook Wrote:  Warning long

That wasn't very long.

Long for me!

(02-13-2010 11:41 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  ACC is going to finish off the Big East. UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers will all jump to the ACC. Leaving UC,UL,USF, and WVU to find another league or bring in CUSA teams. A bunch of people on this board are saying that the leftovers from the B12 will join with the leftovers from the Big East and form a new conference. Do you really see Missouri, Nebraska, Texas Tech, Baylor, Iowa St, Kansas, and Kansas St. wanting to join with Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU and USF?

No, I think the Big 12 leftovers would add some MWC and or C-usa West teams,

(02-13-2010 11:37 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  That's a much more ignorant post than I ever expected from a Rice fan.

That's funny. I thought your post was one of the stupidest posts I'd ever seen an SMU fan make.

Quote:1) I did not propagate any such logical fallacy.

O RLY?

You said "SMU is not an AAU member or a "Tier One" Research school because SMU puts more of a focus on teaching than research..

Look at the AAU member schools. It's a collection of schools that excel at both teaching and research - which are BOTH part of the selection metrics. Just because you emphasize teaching doesn't mean research necessarily has to be deemphasized. SMU is not a member of the AAU because they have not been invited, per the guidelines which are: "based on the high quality of programs of academic research and scholarship and undergraduate, graduate, and professional education in a number of fields, as well as general recognition that a university is outstanding by reason of the excellence of its research and education programs."

Quote: In fact, you are the one propagating a logical fallacy when you state that SMU "neglect(s) half of what universities are intended to do."

Again, those were your words, not mine. There is some good research that occurs at SMU. But I would expect the "we're not more highly rated because we're an undergraduate teaching school" from a TCU fan, not from an SMU fan. Universities generate and propagate knowledge - the best universities do both.

Quote:2) US News and World Report rankings use "percentage of alumni giving" as a criteria, which is what keeps SMU in the 60s as opposed to the 40s. Numerous other rankings are available which give SMU high marks both for individual programs and for the university as a whole.

I guess basic arithmetic is not a requirement at SMU. The "percentage of alumni giving" is weighted at 5%. The University of Texas, who comes in at #47 on the USNWR report has a score of 57 - SMU has a score of 47. 57 minus 47 is greater that five, indicating it is not just percentage of alumni giving that is keeping SMU from being ranked up there with UT.

Quote:3) The Death Penalty was over 20 years ago. Since then, SMU has been one of the cleanest programs in Division I FBS.

Aside from the academic fraud violations in the late 90's, sure. Outside of Texas though, the first thought that springs to most people's minds when they think SMU football is "Death Penalty"

Quote: Rice will never be able to get 70k into Rice Stadium again due to low enrollment figures and lack of interest by the community

Rice has had a season average of 36K (i.e. averaged more than your stadium holds) since the breakup of the SWC. You give people a reason to come to the stadium and they will show up. They won't come as long as the brand of football being played is viewed as second tier.

Quote:4) As for BCS conferences wanting to have the ability to pack fans in:

Selected stadium capacities:

Wake Forest - 31,500
Duke - 33,941
Washington State - 35,117
Vanderbilt - 39,790
Connecticut - 40,000
Cincinnati - 35,097

More selected stadium capacities:

1. Penn State 107,282
2. Michigan 106,201
5. Texas 94,113
7. LSU 92,400
8. Alabama 92,138
9. USC 92,000
11. Florida 88,548
13. Texas A&M 82,600
15. Oklahoma 82,11
21. Arkansas 76,728
36. Oklahoma State 62,000
42. N.C. State 55,571
51t. Baylor 50,000

The median stadium capacity for BCS schools is 65K. Quick arithmetic quiz for you, since you seem to need the practice: Is 65K closer to 70K or 32K?

(02-13-2010 12:19 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 11:41 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  ACC is going to finish off the Big East. UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers will all jump to the ACC. Leaving UC,UL,USF, and WVU to find another league or bring in CUSA teams. A bunch of people on this board are saying that the leftovers from the B12 will join with the leftovers from the Big East and form a new conference. Do you really see Missouri, Nebraska, Texas Tech, Baylor, Iowa St, Kansas, and Kansas St. wanting to join with Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU and USF?

Only in your mind. Let me know how the ACC is feeling from their last expansion?
They added Miami,BC and VTech which trumps the new additions you are suggesting. Without the addition of a championship game.
There is NO WAY that the ACC expands to 16 and adds those four BE teams. Makes no sense financially.

If the Big East makes X dollars and the ACC makes Y dollars. Adding half the Big East that covers the desirable locations of NY,NJ,PA will mean .5X + Y= financial sense. Not to mention a better ESPN basketball contract, and an ACC television network.

Quote:You said "SMU is not an AAU member or a "Tier One" Research school because SMU puts more of a focus on teaching than research..

Look at the AAU member schools. It's a collection of schools that excel at both teaching and research - which are BOTH part of the selection metrics. Just because you emphasize teaching doesn't mean research necessarily has to be deemphasized. SMU is not a member of the AAU because they have not been invited, per the guidelines which are: "based on the high quality of programs of academic research and scholarship and undergraduate, graduate, and professional education in a number of fields, as well as general recognition that a university is outstanding by reason of the excellence of its research and education programs."

1) I'm aware of the requirements to become an AAU member. Unfortunately, due to budgetary reasons, SMU cannot sink as much money into research as, say, Rice. That's why SMU's emphasis on teaching causes research to be de-emphasized. I guess they don't teach basic business at Rice - oh, that's right, they don't - unless you are in grad school.

Quote:Again, those were your words, not mine. There is some good research that occurs at SMU. But I would expect the "we're not more highly rated because we're an undergraduate teaching school" from a TCU fan, not from an SMU fan. Universities generate and propagate knowledge - the best universities do both.

I never once said that SMU neglects research. De-emphasize, sure. "Neglect" is a word you used. I agree with you about what the best universities do, and I think that you and I both attended schools that can be considered among the best in the world.

Quote:I guess basic arithmetic is not a requirement at SMU. The "percentage of alumni giving" is weighted at 5%. The University of Texas, who comes in at #47 on the USNWR report has a score of 57 - SMU has a score of 47. 57 minus 47 is greater that five, indicating it is not just percentage of alumni giving that is keeping SMU from being ranked up there with UT.

I meant the 50s, not 40s - hit the wrong key and didn't proofread.

Quote:Outside of Texas though, the first thought that springs to most people's minds when they think SMU football is "Death Penalty"

The only people who would use that to keep SMU out of a large conference are people who are afraid of a strong school in Dallas keeping the Metroplex talent home (i.e. UT, OU, etc.)

Quote:Rice has had a season average of 36K (i.e. averaged more than your stadium holds) since the breakup of the SWC. You give people a reason to come to the stadium and they will show up. They won't come as long as the brand of football being played is viewed as second tier.

Was that before the Texans came to town? I believe so, but not sure. I'd like more info, i.e. the year, the home opponents, etc. if you could please provide that for me.

I believe that the Cowboys' move to Arlington is the best thing to happen to SMU's chances to get higher attendance totals in a long, long time.

Quote:More selected stadium capacities:

1. Penn State 107,282
2. Michigan 106,201
5. Texas 94,113
7. LSU 92,400
8. Alabama 92,138
9. USC 92,000
11. Florida 88,548
13. Texas A&M 82,600
15. Oklahoma 82,11
21. Arkansas 76,728
36. Oklahoma State 62,000
42. N.C. State 55,571
51t. Baylor 50,000

Nice list. Looks like SMU will fit in well with an (expanded to) 45k on campus stadium and a 92k stadium just down the road for big games.

Look, I'm not claiming that SMU is a better school academically than Rice - it isn't and I'm the first to admit that. I will say that SMU will be invited to a BCS conference before Rice, and the reasons for that are very simple.

1) SMU doesn't have a huge state school less than 10 miles away that will be invited first.
2) SMU has proven that it will invest in athletics if the results justify the investment. Rice could very easily do it, but many Rice fans say that they don't think that will ever happen.
3) DFW is a larger media market than Houston and is also growing at a faster rate than Houston.

That being said, if the Big Ten comes calling for SMU and Rice, they will take Rice first because of AAU membership. That's foolish, though, because the Big Ten isn't going to invite either school.