well said cardboard.

also, that A&M/rice package deal to the big 10 is very intriguing...hmmmmm...

Regarding the academics of the major Conference schools:

5. Stanford (PAC 10)
T9. Duke (ACC)
12. Northwestern (Big 10)
T17. Vanderbilt (SEC)
22. Cal (PAC 10)
T23. USC (PAC 10)
T25. UCLA (PAC 10)
T25. Virginia (ACC)
T25. Wake Forest (ACC)
29. Michigan (Big 10)
30. UNC (ACC)
31. Boston College (ACC)
41. Washington (PAC 10)
T45. tu (Big 12)
T45. Wisconsin (Big 10)
T47. Penn State (Big 10)
T47. Illinois (Big 10)
T47. Miami (ACC)

Top 50 schools:

PAC 10 has 5
ACC has 5
Big 10 has 5
SEC has 1
Big 12 has 1

T53. Florida (SEC)
55. Syracuse (Big East)
T56. Ohio State (Big 10)
T56. Purdue (Big 10)
T56. Georgia (SEC)
T56. Maryland (ACC)
63. Texas A&M (Big 12)
T64. Clemson (ACC)
T64. Rutgers (Big East)
T64. Minnesota (Big 10)
T64. Pitt (Big East)
T69. UConn (Big East)
T69. Virginia Tech (ACC)
T72. Iowa (Big 10)
T75. Indiana (Big 10)
T79. Baylor (Big 12)
T79. Michigan State (Big 10)
T79. Alabama (SEC)
85. Auburn (SEC)
T86. Colorado (Big 12)
T94. Iowa State (Big 12)
T94. Missouri (Big 12)

Schools 51-100:

Big 10 has 6 (11 top 100)
Big East has 4
ACC has 3 (8 top 100)
SEC has 4 (5 top 100)
Big 12 has 5 (6 top 100)

Schools 101-150:

T104: Florida State (ACC)
T104: Kansas (Big 12)
T104: Nebraska (Big 12)
T104. Tennessee (SEC)
T111. N.C. State (ACC)
T111. Oklahoma (Big 12)
T111. Oregon (Pac 10)
T111. South Carolina (SEC)
T111. Washington State (Pac 10)
T120. Arizona (Pac 10)
T124. LSU (SEC)
T129. Kentucky (SEC)
*T129. Utah (MWC, Future PAC 12)*
T132. Kentucky (SEC)
T132. Oklahoma State (Big 12)
T132. Arkansas (SEC)
T132. Kansas State (Big 12)
T139. Oregon State (Pac 10)
T143. Arizona State (Pac 10)
T143. Ole Miss (SEC)

Big 10 has 0
ACC has 2
Pac 10 has 5
Big 12 has 5
SEC has 7

worse than 150:

T151. Mississippi State (SEC)
T156. Cincinnati (Big East)
T159. Texas Tech (Big 12)
T176: Louisville (Big East)
T176: West Virginia (Big East)
T183: South Florida (Big East)

In other words, Missouri(top 100 school) isn't as much of a "reach" as Nebraska or Kansas (both just outside the top 100).

[This message has been edited by CGSC Lobotomy (edited 11/11/2010 10:06p).]

cardboard, that was an excellent analysis! I'll say I've never thought of it that way, but all those points make sense.

The only school I applied to was A&M. I visited both campuses (grew up in Garland - I'm big city for sure) but the seconds I came here I knew this was the place for me and only applied here.

A&M is a different kind of school. We're not the flash in the pan kind of school and that's me, that's why I came here. We're the underdog school, we're the underdog people.

frisco

Doesn't UFlorida have their own "network"? And if so, you can bet that Alabama will be looking to do the same and then LSU...

The SEC allows having your own network guys.

I appreciate all the SEC stuff. However, the best move for us all the way around is the Big 10. . Just mu .02 worth

cardboard - your post is probably the longest one I've ever read here word for word. I like it.

quote:

---

We need to get to the SEC not to get ahead of TU...

---

One thought I had when I read the above - an A&M move to the SEC would set in motion new marketing of the Texas A&M brand (i.e., the lone SEC school in the state, one of the best academic institutions in the conference) as a very different and equally good alternative to Texas (kind of like Coke and Pepsi - you either like one or the other - whereas currently tu is the Coke and we are more of an RC Cola).

While I agree that we will never hold the clout that Texas does, I tend to think an SEC move alone would increase our presence to a more equal status.

Getting out from the shadow of tu would do more than tip the scales IMHO.

[This message has been edited by AGinHI (edited 11/12/2010 4:09a).]

quote:

---

Getting out from the shadow of tu would do more than tip the scales IMHO.

---

Which is why there will be a PAC 12 next year and not a PAC16.

The TU decision makers knew that us in the SEC vs them in the West Coast Conference would give us a large brand boost. Their new bet is that they can hold this conference together while continuing to ignore the greater interests of the conference, which is why Corn left.

Their leaders team think they have us backed into a corner- we stayed for money that we look bad for taking. But in their arrogance they overestimate A&M's lack of brand awareness. I think that A&M will demand the money and when it dries up we will move on, even if it leaves the Baylors of the world stranded.

TU's problem is that they played their hands this summer and this fall, and proved to their world that they will step on any toes necessary to get what they want. With the new TU network deal alone A&M has a reason to back out of the conference that any non-sip sportswriter would support, and their own recent failures remove some of the wind in their sails in the near future. They would look like hypocrites if they tried to stop us leaving the conference, so they window is still open.

The Big 12-2's only hope for survival oddly enough is our success- the more money we legitimately earn through incentives doled out in the conference the less money that has to be robbed from the forgotten five to make that balance $20 million. The less that is robbed, the more resources there are to be put towards some sort of conference TV channel (from what I understand we are basically spearheading) that can pay big bucks in the long term.

The only sure bet is that this will be a fun decade compared to the last one.

[This message has been edited by Cardboardboxer (edited 11/12/2010 6:12a).]

Couple of observations:

1. NEVER rely on a single numerical ranking of schools. It is pure, subjective garbage
designed to sell magazines and "guides".

2. While Owls may daydream about it, Rice will NEVER be extended an all-sports invitation to the B-10. As we all know, the academics are beyond reproach, but thinking that B-10 sports decisions are mostly driven by school administrations is a bit naive. Do Fox/ESPN/ABC/NBC/CBS treasure the median SAT scores Rice brings to the table? The major question for Rice is whether the institution will continue to waste time/money chasing major college sports (for exposure and old grads' misty memories). Excepting the UH upset (after UH lost 2 QBs in one game), check out the Owls' performance in recent years. Also, check out the bizarre group of teams they play. Rice is no longer even an afterthought (and they coulda/shoulda beat lowly Texas this year) among serious college sports players. They should drop football and adopt the U. Chicago model - maybe then a B10 invite will emerge.
Also, the notion that A&M's academics require Rice as a tagalong to rate a B10 invite is insulting. As the B10 knows, demographics ensure that A&M will surpass many/most of the rust belt schools that we don't already outshine academically. If you can't accept that, well, consider this: Nebraska, warmly welcomed new B10 member.

I like Rice (live 4 blocks from it), but you can hear the football death rattle from my house. A&M/Rice joint ventures in sports benefit only Rice. No thanks.

P.S. - One other thing: This thread is interesting, but the Luicci article is FASCINATING and based in fact and EDUCATED speculation. I highly recommend his article, which would debunk some of the speculation on this thread and clarify some important aspects of the UT-Austin deal that affect we Ags. This is a biggie, folks. Get reliable info. Luicci delivers on this issue.

[This message has been edited by maroonatic46 (edited 11/12/2010 9:06a).]

[This message has been edited by maroonatic46 (edited 11/12/2010 9:13a).]

[This message has been edited by maroonatic46 (edited 11/12/2010 9:23a).]

In my opinion Texas A&M to the Big 10 makes no sense whatsoever. A conference should have some type of geographic fundamentals. The Big 10 has states that border Canada...Texas borders Mexico. The SEC just makes so much more sense. We would be the western border of the SEC and A&M has historic rivalries with two border schools. Also keep in mind that this is an athletic conference, not an academic conference.

http://twitter.com/aTmSECede

I prefer the SEC myself - except the cheating rumors (and realities) scare the hell out of me. I was around for Sherrill, etal, and if that's what it takes, forget it.

I could live w/the B10, definitely, as a second choice. It is followed nationwide, plus I think we could win it sooner! Less cheating, too, from what I can tell.

The MAIN issue is how we respectfully disengage from the U of T - Austin....NOW.

Personally I much prefer the Big 10 to the SEC, but understand the geographic argument people make.

My other point - Would tu even be voted in to the Big 10? They have to have unanimous voting to get a school in. I'm pretty sure that Nebraska will do everything in it's power to block their entrance. I doubt they couldn't do it alone - but could stall the process long enough for another school to slip in.

UK-

Wouldn't that just be hilarious!

Karma, baby.

[This message has been edited by maroonatic46 (edited 11/12/2010 12:02p).]

quote:

---

Also, the notion that A&M's academics require Rice as a tagalong to rate a B10 invite is insulting.

---

You miss the point entirely. We don't need Rice as an academic tag along. We do need a partner school, however. The Big Ten will not take an unaccompanied geographic outlier. So the question for TAMU is, who in our neighborhood would be acceptable to the Big Ten? Outside of t.u., Rice is the only potential candidate that would not cause Jim Delaney to laugh and hang up the phone. Their entire contribution is academic, ease of travel and allowing scUM, tOSU, PSU and Wisc to play a football game in Houston every 3-4 years. The arguments are on a par with those for Rutgers with the obvious exception that NYC tv market >>> Houston tv market though frankly fan interest in each city may be about the same. Rutgers gives PSU an eastern partner and lets the aforementioned football big boys play in the NYC metro area every few years.

On the question of branding - our academic reputation is still largely unknown outside of our region. This kind of move would raise both the academic and athletic profile of the school. I know there are a lot reasons to not want to go the Big Ten and that is fine but I think it would be prudent for our leadership to at least look into it going forward. We should not unilaterally close off options. Explore everything- make the Big Ten tell us they are not interested rather than make that decision for them.

[This message has been edited by Univex (edited 11/12/2010 12:38p).]

tech

1. A series of excellent posts by Cardboard.

2. A&M will NEVER go to the Big 10. Drop the academics argument.

3. A&M can be everything that it wants/needs to be by joining the SEC, regardless of whether TU has their own network, a deal with ESPN, goes independent, etc.

4. I personally think that the SEC deal was, and is, always going to happen. I thik it was better for both us AND the SEC that we didn't bail over the summer, but instead took our time. If we can get some money out of the Big 12 (we won't, which we will use as leverage to not pay a buy-out), then good for us- we'll simply sit back and let TU play their hand and we'll be praised for finally standing up and doing our own thing. Additionally, this allows the SEC to take their time and pick and choose exactly who will be the best fit, instead of either rushing to a decision last summer, or moving forward with an odd number of schools. While I would have loved to have seen us make the move last summer and just be done with it, and while I know there's still a good chance that we'll show we have no balls and not leave TU's teet, I think in the end we will have made a smart decision to wait and move later, instead of jumping ship for the SEC and causing World War 3- NCAA version in the process.

5. While I don't think it will necessarily hurt their recruiting, be careful not to overlook the significance of the season TU is having/could have this year. They are breaking all kinds of records going the wrong way in terms of losing at home, losing consecutively, finishing with a losing record, etc. which are a shock to their organization. They were under the impression that they had built such a mammouth program that a "down" year would mean they won 8 games (7 at the least), and were a 3rd or 4th bowl pick out of the Big 12. I wouldn't be surprised if the way we played everything up till now, combined with their season so far, hasn't forced their hand prematurely into leaking this possible ESPN deal; huge egos driving the need to tell the country "don't think we're down and out". Assuming everything plays out and we move to the SEC, this plays right into our hands.

I think we should move to the SEC sooner rather than later. We need to be proactive on this and not let the sips, Baylor alums, governors, or anyone else get in our way. Eventually I think it will be aTm in the west and Virginia Tech in the east. Three schools in the SEC are rated higher than aTm academically. Texas A&M will be in the top third of the SEC in academics just like we are in the Big 12. The fact that the Big 10 took Nebraska shows that conference realignment is about football, money, increased TV markets and fan bases, and expanding the conference footprint geographically (and logically in the same region of the country). This is about athletic conferences, not academic conferences.

In retrospect we should understand that when the sips want us to do something it is probably not in our best interest to follow their lead. Texas A&M ended up doing everything we could to ensure t.u. will have the richest college football program for years to come. It was better for the sips and Baylor for us to remain in the Big 12. It was not the best move for Texas A&M. We need to start doing what is best for us and not worry about the horn and the bear and anyone else you can name. In the future will these schools look out for us or their own interests? It is already evident that we can't trust these schools.

http://twitter.com/aTmSECede



[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 11/12/2010 9:57p).]