(11-06-2013 10:17 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 09:52 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:23 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  [quote='allthatyoucantleavebehind' pid='9960309' dateline='1383724693']
As a Big Ten fan, I think the Big Ten would be satisfied. Not thrilled, but satisfied.

The SEC gets deeper inroads to Texas with Baylor...plus a movement northeast with a strong sports school in WVU.

Iowa State, Kansas State and maybe TCU couldn't sue all three conferences at once for collusion, right?

Thoughts?

...but if UT and OU wanted to head to the Pac-12 (along with TT and OkSt)
...and if Mizzou and Kansas wanted to go Big Ten
...and the SEC saw Baylor, WVU, and Cincinnati sitting there

WVU to the SEC yes as the Mountaineers were on the table until Mizzou came into the picture. It was a mutual best fit for both parties. Mizzou is not going to leave the SEC for the B1G. If they did, you think the first targets for the B1G would have been Rutgers or Maryland? And Mike Slive is surely not going to take Baylor or Cincinnati to assist facilitating a Texoma 4 move to the PAC 16 and Kansas to the B1G. With the lone exception of Vandy, the SEC is comprised of land grant flagship institutions.

The SEC does not want strong brands like Florida State, Clemson or Georgia Tech because there is already a presence in those states....but now the SEC would want Baylor to get "deeper inroads" into Texas...?

Good grief people...the SEC will stand firm at 14 before suboptimizing.

Baylor would allow them another game in Texas and thus another opportunity to recruit Texas. Add in the fact that Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin, Houston, San Antonio are all less than 3 hours from Waco. We are in the heart of one of the most fertile recruiting grounds in the nation.

Add into the mix that Baylor’s MBB 15-3 postseason record over the past five seasons is the nation’s best among teams with three or more postseason berths since 2009. The Bears’ 15 postseason wins trail only North Carolina (17-4) during that span. Baylor went 4-1 and advanced to the NIT Championship game in 2009, the Bears went 3-1 on their way to the NCAA Tournament South Regional Final in both 2010 and 2012, and BU went 5-0 to claim the 2013 NIT championship. The Bears are one of only 10 programs nationally (Butler, Duke, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, Ohio State, & Syracuse) to have played in two Elite Eights since 2010, and both times Baylor was eliminated by the eventual national champions. BU lost to Duke at Houston’s Reliant Stadium in 2010 and to Kentucky at Atlanta’s Georgia Dome in 2012. If the SEC is looking to boost it's basketball profile then getting a program like Baylor would bring a successful basketball program in addition to one of the hottest football teams in the nation currently.

Yes our fan base is small compared to some of the other schools in the Big 12 but playing in bowl games and winning in the post season basketball tournaments brings in money to the conference and Baylor has clearly been doing it better than most in the Big 12 over the past 5 years. Add the success of our Women's basketball team and I think any power conference would strongly consider Baylor should the Texhoma 4 head west.

(11-06-2013 12:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't put a lot of stock in acceptance rates. It depends on how many people apply, so how well known nationally your school is makes you look better for that purpose.

Pretty much what I was saying with Evansville being a private school.

I would think, however, that a number like "99.5%" speaks for itself.

(11-06-2013 10:18 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 10:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  Well like Houston, Tech is ranked in the ARWU, unlike Alabama, Ole Miss or Mississippi State. Tech is 401-500, same as Auburn and Arkansas and behind Houston (201-300).

Tech is unranked in the Times World University Rankings, as are 8 of the 14 SEC schools. Houston, however, is ranked, 301-350, which is behind South Florida, Cincinnati, UConn and Tulane.

As for USNWR, no one outside of Alabama seriously believes that overall, Alabama and Auburn are the 5th and 6th best schools in the SEC. And I didn't think anyone took seriously the idea that Iowa would rank 11th academically in the SEC. It makes me wonder if the Alabama schools falsified data like Clemson and Emory have in recent years.

Talking academic smack as an Alabama fan just proves my point.

You go to Tech if you don't get in to Texas, A&M, Baylor, SMU, TCU, Rice, or any decent out of state school.

Schools like Alabama and Auburn are dramatically better than Texas Tech. Actually, scratch that, just about every major school in the major athletic conferences are better than Tech.

I got into both Texas and Texas A&M and chose Tech because it was further away from home(Houston).

Not even sure why I bother with a cajun fan.

(11-06-2013 01:42 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 10:18 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 10:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  Well like Houston, Tech is ranked in the ARWU, unlike Alabama, Ole Miss or Mississippi State. Tech is 401-500, same as Auburn and Arkansas and behind Houston (201-300).

Tech is unranked in the Times World University Rankings, as are 8 of the 14 SEC schools. Houston, however, is ranked, 301-350, which is behind South Florida, Cincinnati, UConn and Tulane.

As for USNWR, no one outside of Alabama seriously believes that overall, Alabama and Auburn are the 5th and 6th best schools in the SEC. And I didn't think anyone took seriously the idea that Iowa would rank 11th academically in the SEC. It makes me wonder if the Alabama schools falsified data like Clemson and Emory have in recent years.

Talking academic smack as an Alabama fan just proves my point.

You go to Tech if you don't get in to Texas, A&M, Baylor, SMU, TCU, Rice, or any decent out of state school.

Schools like Alabama and Auburn are dramatically better than Texas Tech. Actually, scratch that, just about every major school in the major athletic conferences are better than Tech.

I got into both Texas and Texas A&M and chose Tech because it was further away from home(Houston).

Not even sure why I bother with a cajun fan.

But you did.

(11-06-2013 12:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'll just leave this here.

Where do the mighty ragin cajuns from Louisiana-laffyette rank?(Misspelled on purpose).

(11-06-2013 01:47 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'll just leave this here.

Where do the mighty ragin cajuns from Louisiana-laffyette rank?(Misspelled on purpose).

I care?

(11-06-2013 12:46 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 10:17 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 09:52 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:23 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  [quote='allthatyoucantleavebehind' pid='9960309' dateline='1383724693']
As a Big Ten fan, I think the Big Ten would be satisfied. Not thrilled, but satisfied.

The SEC gets deeper inroads to Texas with Baylor...plus a movement northeast with a strong sports school in WVU.

Iowa State, Kansas State and maybe TCU couldn't sue all three conferences at once for collusion, right?

Thoughts?

...but if UT and OU wanted to head to the Pac-12 (along with TT and OkSt)
...and if Mizzou and Kansas wanted to go Big Ten
...and the SEC saw Baylor, WVU, and Cincinnati sitting there

WVU to the SEC yes as the Mountaineers were on the table until Mizzou came into the picture. It was a mutual best fit for both parties. Mizzou is not going to leave the SEC for the B1G. If they did, you think the first targets for the B1G would have been Rutgers or Maryland? And Mike Slive is surely not going to take Baylor or Cincinnati to assist facilitating a Texoma 4 move to the PAC 16 and Kansas to the B1G. With the lone exception of Vandy, the SEC is comprised of land grant flagship institutions.

The SEC does not want strong brands like Florida State, Clemson or Georgia Tech because there is already a presence in those states....but now the SEC would want Baylor to get "deeper inroads" into Texas...?

Good grief people...the SEC will stand firm at 14 before suboptimizing.

Baylor would allow them another game in Texas and thus another opportunity to recruit Texas. Add in the fact that Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin, Houston, San Antonio are all less than 3 hours from Waco. We are in the heart of one of the most fertile recruiting grounds in the nation.

Add into the mix that Baylor’s MBB 15-3 postseason record over the past five seasons is the nation’s best among teams with three or more postseason berths since 2009. The Bears’ 15 postseason wins trail only North Carolina (17-4) during that span. Baylor went 4-1 and advanced to the NIT Championship game in 2009, the Bears went 3-1 on their way to the NCAA Tournament South Regional Final in both 2010 and 2012, and BU went 5-0 to claim the 2013 NIT championship. The Bears are one of only 10 programs nationally (Butler, Duke, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, Ohio State, & Syracuse) to have played in two Elite Eights since 2010, and both times Baylor was eliminated by the eventual national champions. BU lost to Duke at Houston’s Reliant Stadium in 2010 and to Kentucky at Atlanta’s Georgia Dome in 2012. If the SEC is looking to boost it's basketball profile then getting a program like Baylor would bring a successful basketball program in addition to one of the hottest football teams in the nation currently.

Yes our fan base is small compared to some of the other schools in the Big 12 but playing in bowl games and winning in the post season basketball tournaments brings in money to the conference and Baylor has clearly been doing it better than most in the Big 12 over the past 5 years. Add the success of our Women's basketball team and I think any power conference would strongly consider Baylor should the Texhoma 4 head west.

The only other thing you mentioned that might be of some value to the SEC would be Texas recruiting. And while that might be valuable to Arkansas, Mizzou and Ole Miss, it doesn't offer a whole lot to the other 10 teams. And its ten teams because A&M would vote no for a whole slew reasons that don't need to be rehashed.

For the SEC to accept Baylor, the conference would need to go to 18 teams and pickup two schools from NC and/or VA for it to even be worth the hassle. Otherwise, as LSUtah states, the league stands at 14.

"Peer institutions" aren't driving conference realignment - and if they were you'd see SMU, Tulane, Baylor, and Rice in the same league as each other.

Athletics are different. Baylor is a P5 school, and the other three are not. There are reasons for that.

(11-06-2013 02:27 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  "Peer institutions" aren't driving conference realignment - and if they were you'd see SMU, Tulane, Baylor, and Rice in the same league as each other.

Athletics are different. Baylor is a P5 school, and the other three are not. There are reasons for that.

Political machinations

Baylor was saved by the Governor back when the SWC bit the dust.

(11-06-2013 02:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Baylor was saved by the Governor back when the SWC bit the dust.

Ann Richards didn't care where Baylor went. She was more dedicated to Texas than Baylor. It was the Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock that pushed for Baylor. But just looking at the records of the SWC schools over the last 30 years of the conference Baylor was easily the 3rd team in, in the group going to the Big 12. Tech was the one that barely made the cut. Baylor still has a lot of political pull in the state and will not get left out. Fortunately their athletic success over the last 5-6 years should make them much more desirable than having to rely on political pressure.

(11-05-2013 04:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-05-2013 04:04 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Meh. These guys move around so much and most of those sorts of realignment decisions really are up to the presidents. I think way too many people are reading way too much into such moves.

very true although i think a big part of the old ADs canning was because his ultimate fate is tied with the success of his decision to stay in the b12. and that decision isnt playing out as well as people thought and he paid for it.

thats just my take on it. a lot of texas blogs seem to point to growing internal dissent about the decision to choose the b12 over the pac16

Dodds was not canned.

Since this has descended into a contest of my school is better than your school, I'm ending it.

Anyone who starts up this argument again is in deep doo doo, face first.