Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[Dr Rick Daris]

The dissolving of the swc was kind of like school losing bcs status.

We'll be in the bcs bIg East with ku and mu, so we'll be fine.

Just spit balling here, buy wouldn't it behoove the football playing big east schools to "join" the big 12 and wipe their ass with texas, ou, osu ,tt, and a&m's exit fees?

i think that was the plan last year. i kind of remember thinking that there had to be five original members of the conference to keep the conference together and do something like this. mu gets an invite to sec or b10 and it's just 4. ku,kstate,iowa state and baylor. really need them to not get an invite. would totally take scenario of us, baylor, ku, mu, iowa state, houston, air force, etc. in a new look big12.

[pike]

The dissolving of the swc was kind of like school losing bcs status.

Absolutely my point.  They were in what was considered a major conference and then they were not.  Hasn't had a negative effect on their academics or enrollment at all.

All the schools that "lost" their BCS status when the SWC dissolved are all in major cities though. We're just a hickville school off of I-70

[Houstoncat93]

While I don't agree there are benefits to losing major conference status, no one sane would.  I vehemently disagree that losing BCS status would "have far reaching effects across every level of the University."  First of all, the BCS is 12 years old.  There isn't a university in the BCS who has had their academic status significantly effected by being in or out of the BCS.  There are many schools not involved in a BCS conference that have high enrollment, high academic status, huge endowments, and enough grant money that you may think they print their own.  There is absolutely no evidence tying conference status to university academic standing.  Just ask Nebraska.

I completely disagree with you.


No school has gone from BCS to Non-BCS before.


There is TONS of evidence that ties athletic success to donations, general enrollment, and funding that comes with increased general enrollment.

The BCS is 12 years old, that is completely irrelevant.  Houston was a big player in a conference that won national championships, now they are in C*USA, they are a top 50 public research university.  What in the 2025 initiative will be effected by conference status?  A little bit under half of the top 50 public research universities are never were never will be BCS schools.  Tying university success to a football structure that is 12 years old doesn't even meet the standard as speculative.  You may be of the opinion that it will have a negative effect, but that opinion would be based on flimsy ground.

In what rankings is U of H a top 50 research university?

[Dr Rick Daris]

The dissolving of the swc was kind of like school losing bcs status.

Absolutely my point.  They were in what was considered a major conference and then they were not.  Hasn't had a negative effect on their academics or enrollment at all.

texas state college system is like way different than ks. if ku gets into a big conf and kstate doesn't, it will absolutely have an effect on enrollment, etc.

[catzacker]

The dissolving of the swc was kind of like school losing bcs status.

Absolutely my point.  They were in what was considered a major conference and then they were not.  Hasn't had a negative effect on their academics or enrollment at all.

we would be a great test case.  as would isu.  schools in states and/or cities with limited population losing bcs status.  temple is not.  those swc schools were/are not.  

just so I'm clear, this discussion is in no way inferring that our athletic department wouldn't take a catastrophic hit if we were in a non-BCS/major league?

[Kat Kid]

The tuck leadership is beginning to lay the groundwork for pacifying the masses.

Leland

GoPowercat Ring of Fame member
Post #15121
Nunavut, Canada

POLL: Assuming it is inevitable that D1A will become two-tiered...

Assuming it is inevitable that D1A will become two-tiered with 64 teams in "mega" conferences and 56 "have-nots", do you want KSU to be in a mega-conference?

Yes. The benefits heavily out-weigh the negatives, and I want KSU to play in the "big-time".

No. It is already difficult for KSU to compete against the huge money schools, and it will be even more difficult once there are only 64 "major" programs.
 
with 64 teams in "power" conferences and 56 "have-nots", do you want KSU to be in the 64, or not?



Posted on 9/4 1:31 PM | IP: Logged

I fully realize they will rationalize mediocrity at all levels.  But wow.

I am speechless.  I am without speech.

Conceding athletic competitiveness is ONE part of this equation.  Dropping to a mid-major will have far reaching effects accross every level of the University and community as a whole.

The mere suggestion of the idea that there may by "benefits" to losing our major conference status is literally so asinine on so many levels it is almost incomprehensible.

While I don't agree there are benefits to losing major conference status, no one sane would.  I vehemently disagree that losing BCS status would "have far reaching effects across every level of the University."  First of all, the BCS is 12 years old.  There isn't a university in the BCS who has had their academic status significantly effected by being in or out of the BCS.  There are many schools not involved in a BCS conference that have high enrollment, high academic status, huge endowments, and enough grant money that you may think they print their own.  There is absolutely no evidence tying conference status to university academic standing.  Just ask Nebraska.

You're right, we could be Colorado State without the mountains.  Let's all accept that.

Colorado State is a landgrant institution with a similar academic profile.  Peas in a pod.  Can't wait.

[felix rex]

While I don't agree there are benefits to losing major conference status, no one sane would.  I vehemently disagree that losing BCS status would "have far reaching effects across every level of the University."  First of all, the BCS is 12 years old.  There isn't a university in the BCS who has had their academic status significantly effected by being in or out of the BCS.  There are many schools not involved in a BCS conference that have high enrollment, high academic status, huge endowments, and enough grant money that you may think they print their own.  There is absolutely no evidence tying conference status to university academic standing.  Just ask Nebraska.

I completely disagree with you.


No school has gone from BCS to Non-BCS before.


There is TONS of evidence that ties athletic success to donations, general enrollment, and funding that comes with increased general enrollment.

The canonized SI article on Snyder mentions some hard figures on this. We'd absolutely suffer and inevitably start to shrivel.

The SI article mentions the increase in attendance.  The entire regents system had enrollment growth over the same period.  Even WSU who lost football.  There also was a change in administration at Kansas State over the same period.  I'm not arguing that more people won't enroll at a school with academic success and more people may contribute to the academics of said school.  But you guys are overselling the effect. 

It's natural for zealous college sports fans to think everyone at the university about athletics cares as much as we do, but we are in a extreme minority.  Some of you sound like the Wichita State fans here who think the university enrollment is up because they are "good" at basketball. 

I'd never say that basketball had much of an effect.

Also, not really hard numbers, but this is what I was thinking of:

And as the football team has improved, so has the rest of the university. It is a symbiotic relationship. Enrollment last spring was 19,775. Since Wefald became president, five Kansas State students have been awarded Rhodes scholarships. Rival Kansas, which has about 5,000 more students, has had none over the same span. Indeed, only five schools in the country have produced more Rhodes Scholars since '86. In addition, Kansas State was one of only three schools to have four finalists (including one winner) for the prestigious Truman scholarships last year and ranks first in the nation since '86 in producing winners, with 10. Kansas State has had 11 Goldwater scholars, second best in the country among public universities. The debate team won the national championship last year, beating UCLA for the title. Says Rich McCollum, a member of the debate team, "We want to be at a place that's fun. Winning football games makes things fun." All this success has spirits soaring.

[MakeItRain]

While I don't agree there are benefits to losing major conference status, no one sane would.  I vehemently disagree that losing BCS status would "have far reaching effects across every level of the University."  First of all, the BCS is 12 years old.  There isn't a university in the BCS who has had their academic status significantly effected by being in or out of the BCS.  There are many schools not involved in a BCS conference that have high enrollment, high academic status, huge endowments, and enough grant money that you may think they print their own.  There is absolutely no evidence tying conference status to university academic standing.  Just ask Nebraska.

I completely disagree with you.


No school has gone from BCS to Non-BCS before.


There is TONS of evidence that ties athletic success to donations, general enrollment, and funding that comes with increased general enrollment.

The BCS is 12 years old, that is completely irrelevant.  Houston was a big player in a conference that won national championships, now they are in C*USA, they are a top 50 public research university.  What in the 2025 initiative will be effected by conference status?  A little bit under half of the top 50 public research universities are never were never will be BCS schools.  Tying university success to a football structure that is 12 years old doesn't even meet the standard as speculative.  You may be of the opinion that it will have a negative effect, but that opinion would be based on flimsy ground.

In what rankings is U of H a top 50 research university?

http://mup.asu.edu/research2010.pdf

[doom]

Meanwhile, Cheyenne Zulu is shitting his pants.

http://www2.kusports.com/videos/2011/sep/03/34966/

Same party line as Currie, and though it sounds weak and helpless (because it is,) it's the best play.  Keeps the slight possibility of keeping a refugee conference on the table (though it won't happen, it's nice to have more than one option and bargaining tool,) and it keeps things from sliding out of control quicker than it needs to, which would happen if MU,isu,ku,ksu,baylor were seen as shopping.

[MakeItRain]

The dissolving of the swc was kind of like school losing bcs status.

Absolutely my point.  They were in what was considered a major conference and then they were not.  Hasn't had a negative effect on their academics or enrollment at all.

 

just so I'm clear, this discussion is in no way inferring that our athletic department wouldn't take a catastrophic hit if we were in a non-BCS/major league?

anyone who hints otherwise should be neutered.

[MakeItRain]

The tuck leadership is beginning to lay the groundwork for pacifying the masses.

Leland

GoPowercat Ring of Fame member
Post #15121
Nunavut, Canada

POLL: Assuming it is inevitable that D1A will become two-tiered...

Assuming it is inevitable that D1A will become two-tiered with 64 teams in "mega" conferences and 56 "have-nots", do you want KSU to be in a mega-conference?

Yes. The benefits heavily out-weigh the negatives, and I want KSU to play in the "big-time".

No. It is already difficult for KSU to compete against the huge money schools, and it will be even more difficult once there are only 64 "major" programs.
 
with 64 teams in "power" conferences and 56 "have-nots", do you want KSU to be in the 64, or not?



Posted on 9/4 1:31 PM | IP: Logged

I fully realize they will rationalize mediocrity at all levels.  But wow.

I am speechless.  I am without speech.

Conceding athletic competitiveness is ONE part of this equation.  Dropping to a mid-major will have far reaching effects accross every level of the University and community as a whole.

The mere suggestion of the idea that there may by "benefits" to losing our major conference status is literally so asinine on so many levels it is almost incomprehensible.

While I don't agree there are benefits to losing major conference status, no one sane would.  I vehemently disagree that losing BCS status would "have far reaching effects across every level of the University."  First of all, the BCS is 12 years old.  There isn't a university in the BCS who has had their academic status significantly effected by being in or out of the BCS.  There are many schools not involved in a BCS conference that have high enrollment, high academic status, huge endowments, and enough grant money that you may think they print their own.  There is absolutely no evidence tying conference status to university academic standing.  Just ask Nebraska.

You're right, we could be Colorado State without the mountains.  Let's all accept that.

Colorado State is a landgrant institution with a similar academic profile.  Peas in a pod.  Can't wait.

I was trying to detect a to ne with your post and couldn't determine if you were being sarcastic or not.  Actually academically they are what Schultzie wants us to be after 2025.  They have a much larger endowment and they are a top 50  public research institution.

[Cartierfor3]

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1260448

...and on cue......the texas legislature

merely a speed bump.  you can't stop what's coming.

People keep saying this, but what is 'what's coming'?

What person of real power and influence has gone on record to say that it's 4x16 other than Larry Scott?  Who?  Other than columnists with a blatant playoff agenda, who says this is truly inevitable?

What's inevitable is that about 20-30 teams will totally outpace everyone else and have the potential to break off from the NCAA.  Some strange 64 team division that results in a playoff is some mythical creation by the media dreaming of a playoff.

I don't know what the scenario will end up being.  By 'what's coming' I mean K-State being on the outside.

[Trim]

http://blogmaverick.com/2011/09/04/so-what-should-big-12-schools-do-say-no-to-super-conferences/

[Trim]

Trim, when did that Olive Garden Gift Card expire?  We may be in trouble in this whole thing if Schultz gets hungry at the wrong time...

He should donate to BBBS and take a shot at winning some Houlihan's gift certificates.

[pike]

http://blogmaverick.com/2011/09/04/so-what-should-big-12-schools-do-say-no-to-super-conferences/

He's right. It will completely ruin college sports.

[Boakai]

A high-ranking college official did say Sunday that the Big East had reached out to multiple Big 12 universities and indicated, much as it did during the Texas-Pac-12 expansion talks last year, that the league would be interested in taking the universities if the Big 12 fell apart. The official said the Big East was not rooting for the demise of the Big 12, but opened up lines of communication in case it dissolved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/sports/ncaafootball/texas-is-key-player-in-pac-12s-expansion-outlook.html?_r=1

will take at this point. pretty tired of this stuff. just want the stadium expansion. k night 

[Katpappy]

A high-ranking college official did say Sunday that the Big East had reached out to multiple Big 12 universities and indicated, much as it did during the Texas-Pac-12 expansion talks last year, that the league would be interested in taking the universities if the Big 12 fell apart. The official said the Big East was not rooting for the demise of the Big 12, but opened up lines of communication in case it dissolved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/sports/ncaafootball/texas-is-key-player-in-pac-12s-expansion-outlook.html?_r=1

will take at this point. pretty tired of this stuff. just want the stadium expansion. k night 

If I remember correctly, the Big East schools make less than Big XII TV money per football team.  Why not cherry pick the Big East schools and create a new Big 12... with or without Texas. 

[OlatheWildcat]

A high-ranking college official did say Sunday that the Big East had reached out to multiple Big 12 universities and indicated, much as it did during the Texas-Pac-12 expansion talks last year, that the league would be interested in taking the universities if the Big 12 fell apart. The official said the Big East was not rooting for the demise of the Big 12, but opened up lines of communication in case it dissolved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/sports/ncaafootball/texas-is-key-player-in-pac-12s-expansion-outlook.html?_r=1

will take at this point. pretty tired of this stuff. just want the stadium expansion. k night 

If I remember correctly, the Big East schools make less than Big XII TV money per football team.  Why not cherry pick the Big East schools and create a new Big 12... with or without Texas. 

Their contract is renegotiated this next year, so the value could be pretty good.

[chum1]

We might have trouble convincing TV networks to pay as much if they weren't getting Texas.   

[OlatheWildcat]

Hearing Big East schools call getting Missouri a coup makes me LOL

[Katpappy]

We might have trouble convincing TV networks to pay as much if they weren't getting Texas.   

We have a great 2nd tier contract with Fox and we are due to renegotiate our 1st tier contract in 2115-16 yr.  If we took all 8 football schools and with our 4 or 5 remaining schools and cash from schools leaving, we should be the better deal. 

[doom]

We might have trouble convincing TV networks to pay as much if they weren't getting Texas.   

We have a great 2nd tier contract with Fox and we are due to renegotiate our 1st tier contract in 2115-16 yr.  If we took all 8 football schools and with our 4 or 5 remaining schools and cash from schools leaving, we should be the better deal. 

You are assuming MU or WVU don't get poached by the acc.  Also assuming that a non crumbling conference crumbles before one that has been crumbling for a year. 

[Katpappy]

We might have trouble convincing TV networks to pay as much if they weren't getting Texas.  

We have a great 2nd tier contract with Fox and we are due to renegotiate our 1st tier contract in 2115-16 yr.  If we took all 8 football schools and with our 4 or 5 remaining schools and cash from schools leaving, we should be the better deal.  

You are assuming MU or WVU don't get poached by the acc.  Also assuming that a non crumbling conference crumbles before one that has been crumbling for a year.  

Has nothing to do with crumbling conference, but what makes sense for the remaining schools in both the Big East and Big XII.  The merger of two AQ conferences will keep the newly formed conference AQ.  That's where the money is.  Plus I doubt any other conference would be interested in these schools, so conference teams would stay together and become stable.

[MakeItRain]

We might have trouble convincing TV networks to pay as much if they weren't getting Texas.   

We have a great 2nd tier contract with Fox and we are due to renegotiate our 1st tier contract in 2115-16 yr.  If we took all 8 football schools and with our 4 or 5 remaining schools and cash from schools leaving, we should be the better deal. 

You are assuming MU or WVU don't get poached by the acc. 

Certainly this is a typo.  ACC, are you shitting me?  Familiarize yourself with TV contracts, doom.  The ACC's contract is a shitty $155 million a year for the next 11 years.  They aren't poaching anyone from anywhere.  $155 million is what the Big 12 is getting right now with less teams and soon to be expiring tier 1 rights.  The only thing preventing the destruction of the ACC is geography.

[Panjandrum]

We might have trouble convincing TV networks to pay as much if they weren't getting Texas.   

We have a great 2nd tier contract with Fox and we are due to renegotiate our 1st tier contract in 2115-16 yr.  If we took all 8 football schools and with our 4 or 5 remaining schools and cash from schools leaving, we should be the better deal. 

You are assuming MU or WVU don't get poached by the acc. 

Certainly this is a typo.  ACC, are you shitting me?  Familiarize yourself with TV contracts, doom.  The ACC's contract is a shitty $155 million a year for the next 11 years.  They aren't poaching anyone from anywhere.  $155 million is what the Big 12 is getting right now with less teams and soon to be expiring tier 1 rights.  The only thing preventing the destruction of the ACC is geography.

The SEC and ACC share so much common geography that poaching from one to the other would be riotous. 

The SEC has painted themselves into a bit of a corner here.  They're going to need Mizzou to fall into their lap (which may happen), or they're going to need to go get WVU.  Odds are, WVU gets the nod for being a much better fit in general.