What could have been done to stop this madness?

[Panjandrum]

I think NC State would really be attractive to the SEC. Much more than MU and WVU. Not sure why that doesn't get more play.

Depends if the NC contingency will let them leave.

I don't think Duke and UNC would be very happy if the other member of their trio started getting SEC money rained on them and have the sole designation of being the NC school in the SEC.

I don't think Duke and UNC would have a choice.

If they do have a choice, then yeah, by all means there should be more NC State to the SEC talk.

[kso_FAN]

A less greedy UT who was willing to make a few consessions for the good of the whole. IMHO that's really it. Granted, you can blame the other schools for getting Texas-envy and bolting, but at the end of the day UT had the control to keep this thing together and they chose not to make any concessions when they could have still saved the conference. That said, I can't blame UT for trying to milk this thing for all its worth, especially since they'll likely be fine (at least financially) in the long run, but they initiated the destruction.

I agree with this for the most part, but I think a lot of the blame has to go on NU, OU, ATM.  All four of these schools wanted to be the big boy in the sandbox, and voted in accordance with those wishes.  Then the little 3 got pissed and left.  If, in the beginning those 3 plus the rest of the schools banned together for equal revenue sharing (outside of tier 3), centralized offices, etc. I think we could have steered Texas into a stronger Big 12.  

I can agree with that completely for Nebraska and I can see it for OU and aTm. But after NU left, UT knew that this could happen again, despite the brief harmony last summer, especially if they continued to push the envelope. They still decided to with the LHN, even when they knew things they were pushing (HS games, more of than 1 UT game) on this issue were pushing the league apart. They could've easily stopped and at least put those plans on hold, but they continued to push it and eventually aTm and OU called them on it.

[jmlynch1]

We are a poor school that isn't very respected academically. Like high school, other schools don't want to be associated with us. Same goes for a lot of these schools in the plains.

You'd hope the "richer" schools would appreciate the mission of our schools, but they'd rather be associated with bigger and better.

Population centers man. Population centers.

[Dr Rick Daris]

A less greedy UT who was willing to make a few consessions for the good of the whole. IMHO that's really it. Granted, you can blame the other schools for getting Texas-envy and bolting, but at the end of the day UT had the control to keep this thing together and they chose not to make any concessions when they could have still saved the conference. That said, I can't blame UT for trying to milk this thing for all its worth, especially since they'll likely be fine (at least financially) in the long run, but they initiated the destruction.

I agree with this for the most part, but I think a lot of the blame has to go on NU, OU, ATM.  All four of these schools wanted to be the big boy in the sandbox, and voted in accordance with those wishes.  Then the little 3 got pissed and left.  If, in the beginning those 3 plus the rest of the schools banned together for equal revenue sharing (outside of tier 3), centralized offices, etc. I think we could have steered Texas into a stronger Big 12.  

I can agree with that completely for Nebraska and I can see it for OU and aTm. But after NU left, UT knew that this could happen again, despite the brief harmony last summer, especially if they continued to push the envelope. They still decided to with the LHN, even when they knew things they were pushing (HS games, more of than 1 UT game) on this issue were pushing the league apart. They could've easily stopped and at least put those plans on hold, but they continued to push it and eventually aTm and OU called them on it.

the goal of the longhorn network was never to do just one game though. the contract makes that pretty obvious. i think texas wanted the big12 to stay around long enough to get the network and then they'd deal w/ the repercussions later with the feeling that no matter what they'd be okay and always wanted somewhere. not sure i buy any of this talk about them wanting to keep this together.

[CHONGS]

We are a poor school that isn't very respected academically. Like high school, other schools don't want to be associated with us. Same goes for a lot of these schools in the plains.

You'd hope the "richer" schools would appreciate the mission of our schools, but they'd rather be associated with bigger and better.

This is the other main driving force.  

[kso_FAN]

the goal of the longhorn network was never to do just one game though. the contract makes that pretty obvious. i think texas wanted the big12 to stay around long enough to get the network and then they'd deal w/ the repercussions later with the feeling that no matter what they'd be okay and always wanted somewhere. not sure i buy any of this talk about them wanting to keep this together.

True, there goal was never to keep it together. They would've probably taken keeping it together after they got LHN, but they were never going out of their way to keep it together.

[HeinBallz]

None of this would have happened if NU could have just beat UT.

[wetwillie]

The former slave states seem to be making out really well in conference realignment.  In hindsight that might have been a move that could have been made.

[Deez Nutz]

I have a question about what exactly is being referred to with the term "academic fit" in terms of conference realignment.  When it gets said that the Big 10 or the Pac 12 is not excited about K-State (or KU, OU, and OSU for that matter) because of "academics", how exactly would that drag down other schools?  Are they talking about the lower admission requirements of school A giving it a competitive advantage over school B in terms of recruiting football players?  Are they talking about research grants not being awarded to school B just because school A is in the same conference?  Are they talking about the general public's perception of School A and how that would supposedly affect the quality of students that go to school B?  I just don't get how the "academic" standing of one school could be a drag on an entire conference when all they are doing is playing each other in sports. 

[deputy dawg]

The former slave states seem to be making out really well in conference realignment.  In hindsight that might have been a move that could have been made.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of  1854 is behind all this?

[MadCat]

I have a question about what exactly is being referred to with the term "academic fit" in terms of conference realignment.  When it gets said that the Big 10 or the Pac 12 is not excited about K-State (or KU, OU, and OSU for that matter) because of "academics", how exactly would that drag down other schools?  Are they talking about the lower admission requirements of school A giving it a competitive advantage over school B in terms of recruiting football players?  Are they talking about research grants not being awarded to school B just because school A is in the same conference?  Are they talking about the general public's perception of School A and how that would supposedly affect the quality of students that go to school B?  I just don't get how the "academic" standing of one school could be a drag on an entire conference when all they are doing is playing each other in sports. 

I'm not sure...but there is this:

Peer universities

K-State's five official academic peers are determined by land-grant status, student population, and other factors: Colorado State University, Iowa State University, North Carolina State University, Oklahoma State University, Oregon State University

MWC, Big 12, ACC, Big 12, PAC-12

[nicname]

I have a question about what exactly is being referred to with the term "academic fit" in terms of conference realignment.  When it gets said that the Big 10 or the Pac 12 is not excited about K-State (or KU, OU, and OSU for that matter) because of "academics", how exactly would that drag down other schools?  Are they talking about the lower admission requirements of school A giving it a competitive advantage over school B in terms of recruiting football players?  Are they talking about research grants not being awarded to school B just because school A is in the same conference?  Are they talking about the general public's perception of School A and how that would supposedly affect the quality of students that go to school B?  I just don't get how the "academic" standing of one school could be a drag on an entire conference when all they are doing is playing each other in sports. 

The B10 is an academic conf. just as much as a sports conference.  They share research money, etc.  I don't know about the PAC but I know that Cal and Stanford, etc. like to be uppity about who they rub shoulders with in conference.  I'm not sure if there is revenue sharing going on their either.  The ACC is a really damn good athletic conference as well.  I actually really respect the ACC they seem to be a conference with a lot of "group values" they also don't parade around.  I laugh when people talk about raiding the ACC, won't happen. 

B12 and BE are made-for-tv sports conferences, there is no ties other than teams to schedule and money to be made. In these conferences it doesn't matter if UT is a top 25 school and TTech is tier 3, who cares it's about sports.  The academic/research money is the biggest reason why ND won't join the B10 and sent their other sports to the BE.  ND doesn't want to contribute to things the Catholic church opposes (stem cells, etc.).  In the BE that type of $$$ isn't shared. 

It sucks for a school like KSU, that is more student/ undergrad focused than some of the more research focused schools.  They look down on us because of that stuff, but if we were in a group like the B10 our school would be helped out a lot. 

[michigancat]

The B10 is an academic conf. just as much as a sports conference.  They share research money, etc.  I don't know about the PAC but I know that Cal and Stanford, etc. like to be uppity about who they rub shoulders with in conference.

which makes them rubbing shoulders with ASU so funny.

[fatty fat fat]

It sucks for a school like KSU, that is more student/ undergrad focused than some of the more research focused schools.  They look down on us because of that stuff, but if we were in a group like the B10 our school would be helped out a lot. 

nope.

[ArchE_Cat]

The B10 is an academic conf. just as much as a sports conference.  They share research money, etc.  I don't know about the PAC but I know that Cal and Stanford, etc. like to be uppity about who they rub shoulders with in conference.

which makes them rubbing shoulders with ASU so funny.

right on. Tempe is like moving OSU/Stillwater 5 min from OKC and KSU/Manhattan 5 min from KC. Well, except that Phoenix is way better than OKC or KC.

[Emo EMAW]

The B10 is an academic conf. just as much as a sports conference.  They share research money, etc.  I don't know about the PAC but I know that Cal and Stanford, etc. like to be uppity about who they rub shoulders with in conference.

which makes them rubbing shoulders with ASU so funny.

right on. Tempe is like moving OSU/Stillwater 5 min from OKC and KSU/Manhattan 5 min from KC. Well, except that Phoenix is way better than OKC or KC.

Kind of a stretch, IMO.  Sure, there are definitely things that are better, but there's a lot of worse crap thrown in.  The weather down there sucks.  Tons of Mexicans, and tons of public anti-Mexican sentiment, gangs, horrible residential housing market, foreclosures, bad public schools, gangs, drug violence, etc etc. 

[Panjandrum]

The B10 is an academic conf. just as much as a sports conference.  They share research money, etc.  I don't know about the PAC but I know that Cal and Stanford, etc. like to be uppity about who they rub shoulders with in conference.

which makes them rubbing shoulders with ASU so funny.

right on. Tempe is like moving OSU/Stillwater 5 min from OKC and KSU/Manhattan 5 min from KC. Well, except that Phoenix is way better than OKC or KC.

Kind of a stretch, IMO.  Sure, there are definitely things that are better, but there's a lot of worse crap thrown in.  The weather down there sucks.  Tons of Mexicans, and tons of public anti-Mexican sentiment, gangs, horrible residential housing market, foreclosures, bad public schools, gangs, drug violence, etc etc. 

Phoenix is pretty meh.  I mean, it's nicer than some other big cities, but it's a lot worse than some others.  Chandler and Scottsdale are really nice, but duh.

[hemmy]

Chandler/Phoenix/Tempe are all the same city basically.

[michigancat]

Phoenix is worse than every big city.

[Gooch]

I see your Phoenix and raise you a Jacksonville.

[steve dave]

Houston is also awful

[michigancat]

never been to jacksonville (could be a "medium city"), but Phoenix is definitely worse than Houston.

[steve dave]

never been to jacksonville (could be a "medium city"), but Phoenix is definitely worse than Houston.

yeah, just pointing out it is also awful...the other two major TX cities dominate it in being less awful. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Houston is also awful

Yeah, I've never been to Phoenix, but I have a hard time believing it's worse than Houston.

[SleepFighter]

never been to jacksonville (could be a "medium city"), but Phoenix is definitely worse than Houston.