[College Football] Big Ten, Texas have initial talks

I guess that all depends on wether you think UT has any peer institutions in the Pac 10, cause it certainly doesn't have any in the Big 12.

 

Where is Colorado going to get the fee money from?

 

I can TOTALLY buy that. I can completely buy that UT is far and away the best school in the Big 12.

But I still have zero understanding how being in an athletic conference with a school that is their equal somehow improves the university.

If that's the case, let's get Rice in the Big 12 immediately...and let's stop farting around with universities like Tech and OK State that aren't Tier 1 schools.

And let Stanford know that their athletic affiliation with Oregon State is KILLING THEM!!

 

great question

one of my very best friends is a CU grad. he's pissed about all this. he HATES losing the game with Nebraska....and he keeps saying, "how is this cash-strapped athletic department writing checks it can't cash??"

 

In a world where athletics didn't bring in so much money, this would happen in a heartbeat.

Like Sam's article said, it's the interests UT Inc vs. UT Edu.

UT Inc won because of how much money UT Inc throws around, and the money was in favor of the Big 12 (supposedly).

 

I think this was written by a Tech grad.

http://splog.nationallampoon.com/ar...embers-of-the-fraternity-of-evil-billionaires

 

I agree...I'd just like to understand the dynamics behind the education argument.

If you want to cooperate with Stanford on some joint venture project that will improve both schools and offer students something better...do it. Being in the Big 12 doesn't stop that.

 

I don't know the mechanics of it either, but there's always that saying "you are the company you keep."

 

Unfortunately, I don't know enough people on the University/school side of Baylor to ask that question of....

 

Assuming you are talking about academics you are delusional if you dont think A&M is at least a peer university and at least close to Texas in academics.

Yes Texas is ranked a little higher but it is not a drastic difference.

 

i've never heard anyone say "texas, man that'd be such a better university if they didn't play iowa state in various athletic endeavours, but since they do, i don't think they're a very good school academically".

of course, my friends don't use words like endeavours either.

 

Well, UT seemed to have a problem going and playing with the academically inferior dunderheads in the SEC.

Soo... I dunno man. Guess we'll never know if it was a worthwhile endeavour.

 

On a very direct basis, you have the CIC in the B10. That's an example of academic cooperation through conference affiliation. There was talk of something similar occurring between the Cali schools and Texas, though none of us know any details there.

Beyond that, it's not a "oh, you're in a league with Ole Miss, so you must be stupid". It's a general reputation thing. Right or wrong, people associate Universities with their conferences. You automatically get a reputation being associated with the BigTen, which attracts higher quality students, which improves your quality.

You also have more opportunities in the regions of your conference - in the Pac10's case, the power is in partnerships in California. Can Texas have those without the conference? Sure - and it probably does already. But you get a lot more possibilities when Texas is part of the local culture in Silicon Valley instead of being some random school half the country away. I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing Texas has more connections with a school like Missouri than they do a school like Georgia, simply because there is a natural avenue of connection.

Everyone's trying to make this about Tech or Oregon State, and trying to make some direct connection of how it affects what you think of Texas next year. That's missing the entire point.

 

This is what i stated way back on page 6 or something,lol. This is about big boy football and basketball. The money they get from that funds all the non revenue producing sports. When you lose sports, you lose prestige and students. If they want to do something universally with a big time university in the big 10 or pac 10, there isn't anything stopping them. People didn't follow the money which is the #1 rule. If texas was rice in football or like duke, they wouldn't have nearly the pull they have now.When the football and basketbal programs are down, so are contributions from alum.

 

Didn't us world news and reports rank University of Florida over texas? Isn't vandy a top academic school also? I don't think students really look that far into it. You can be a top student in alabama, but cant afford to go to vandy because of out of state. If you're a great student and creme of the creme, future employers look at that. They don't care if you're magna c*m laude at bama vs texas bcause you're still a top tier student and thats all that matters.

 

Your theory doesn't work because if you just follow the money, Texas would have ended up in the Big10. The amount Texas is projected to make is a bit more than what B10 schools make now - without the addition of Texas (expanding their footprint by about 30%), and without all the academic $$ that come from the CIC.

 

What will texas make in this new deal? Not to mention they get to dominate the conference and get into the bcs year after year. If the money is close, its better to stay put i would think.

 

The CIC comprises 12% of total federal research grant funding - in excess of $4 billion annually. Here's some examples of the academic effects:

http://huskermike.blogspot.com/2010/06/nebraskas-move-to-big-ten-has.html

On Monday, KOZN radio's Kevin Kugler suggested on-the-air that the academic programs could really get a boost by joining the Big Ten. Yesterday, KLIN radio's Jack Mitchell tweeted a link to the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, the academic side of the Big Ten. Then today, the World-Herald put it all together about what the CIC does for Big Ten schools. It's a partnership that receives 12% of the research grants from the federal government. The schools collaborate on classes and research projects. When something becomes a successful venture, the schools receive royalties from these findings. And if you think football brings in big money, just check out what Big Ten schools take in. Wisconsin, for example, $474 million in federal research grants in 2008 on top of $83 million earned on past research.

To put it in perspective...Nebraska's athletic department budget was $75 million in 2008-09.

Penn State, the last school to join the Big Ten, made noticeable jumps in the national rankings. They now are 15th in the nation in terms of academic quality as well as in federal research grants (about triple what Nebraska brings in currently.)

Now, the CIC isn't a direct $$ correlation because member institutions directly apply for their own grants, but the connections certainly brings access to a whole hell of a lot of potential research dollars.

The total value wouldn't be close at all.

 

I understand that, but do texas have to be in the big ten to get research money? I mean, we're talking about research. Couldn't they partner with a school like rice or some other fine academic institution and get the same benefits. Now, i for one said the big 10 made way more sense than the pac ten, but once tamu called the bluff, they had to do something. Bottomline, i don't see texas hurting for money anytime soon.

 

The CIC also includes Chicago, which gave up bigtime athletics after being a major player in the Big 10 in the prewar era in order to focus on academics & research, which it does in droves, with projects like Fermilab and the "Bubble Fusion" project run by Keanu Reeves/Morgan Freeman.

To be part of the CIC? Apparently the answer is yes.