[Moved to the Rivalries forum - STAFF]

Hey,

I was wondering if anybody here prefers having Texas Tech in the Big XII over another out of state team. I personally, as a student, like it. A lot of my friends go there, and I just like having more Texas schools in the Big XII. I just hear a lot of people trash talk Tech and say they shouldnt be in the Big XII, but they have been competitive at home, so I was just wondering. I know ya'll hate to say it but they seem to becoming some sort of a
"rival". Why else would tech have been the second most packed game last year.

[This message has been edited by TexAgs staff (edited 9/10/2003 3:50p).]

I hate the dirt monkeys, but at least they are competetive. Now if only Baylor.....

Tech adds nothing from an educational standpoint, their athletics program almost always runs in the red, their fan support is weak, and while they are competitive in most sports they have hardly won anything of significance since joining the Big XII.

I think many people would rather have TCU in the league vs. Tech. Dallas over Lubbock is a no-brainer.

Don't particularly like or care for the trash talk from tech but they have achieved a higher level of success than the guys from Waco.
Hey we always need someone around to remind us of why we chose A&M.

True, Dallas would be a lot nicer than Lubbock. Hoever, I would have to say the TCU fans just dont show up at all. They would probably be similar to the Baylor fans. But I guess thats better than those techies.

"Tech adds nothing from an educational standpoint"

I don't see the rationale in this statement other than that of a rivalry.

Tech may not be in the same status as A&M or t.u., but they do have good colleges on campus. Granted, I would not want to go there, but to make a blanket statement like that, has no merit. IMO

Gig'em

I wouldn't call Tech fan support weak...UH, Rice, TCU, etc maybe but Tech no.

What freaking board do you think your on?

quote:

---

"Tech adds nothing from an educational standpoint"

I don't see the rationale in this statement other than that of a rivalry.

Tech may not be in the same status as A&M or t.u., but they do have good colleges on campus. Granted, I would not want to go there, but to make a blanket statement like that, has no merit. IMO

---

I base it simply on entrance criteria. Tech basically has an open enrollment, meaning just about anyone that has a high school diploma can get into Tech. I have not heard of one person who ever got rejected by Tech. I've heard plenty being rejected by A&M and tu.

Plus, you have to look at rankings, even if they are sometimes inefficient. Tech's academic reputation is not sterling, and they don't excel in any one particular field.

The answer is not only NO but Hell NO!

Full Speed Ahead - Fire At Will - Gig'em

quote:

---

I base it simply on entrance criteria. Tech basically has an open enrollment, meaning just about anyone that has a high school diploma can get into Tech. I have not heard of one person who ever got rejected by Tech. I've heard plenty being rejected by A&M and tu.

Plus, you have to look at rankings, even if they are sometimes inefficient. Tech's academic reputation is not sterling, and they don't excel in any one particular field.

---

This the most uninformed, and ignorant statement, yet.

You should quit basing your knowledge on Tech's academics by what you read on the Texags rivalries board.

Tech does not have open admission. Tech's admission criteria are quite stringent, actually. However, Tech has an individual review for those who don't qualify under the criteria. Some students do get in on individual review. Those who don't can go to community college and transfer in after acquiring a minimum number of hours and GPA.

By the way, I would know a little bit about how many students are rejected by Tech....since I used to work for the Admissions office. It's actually become more stringent since when I worked for admissions.

Although I am one to dismiss any rankings by US News or Princeton Review (which is not associated with Princeton University by any means) because they are statistically invalid, for arguement's sake let's go ahead and use them.

Tech is ranked in the 3rd Tier, admittedly, of Research I Universities. However...

This means that out of 3500 colleges in America, Tech is ranked in the top 150 (at least). Remember, Tier 3 is listed alphabetically, so the WORST Tech could be is 150.

Yet, academically, you consider that a "joke". Why? By my calculations, that puts Tech in the top 4% in the nation.

Maybe you should do some research before making your assumptions.

Lastly, regarding the Big XII. Tech has as much right as any other institution to be in the Big XII. Our athletic budget is middle of the pack now. We have brought money into the conference w/our postseason play every year but two (last year we were cursed w/the only Big XII bowl game played right before Christmas). Even our basketball program has brought money into the Big XII coffers. When has A&M's b-ball program every brought in post-season dollars to the Big XII?????

Our avg. attendance in football is around the middle of the conference. Our avg. attendance in basketball is in the top 1/3 of the conference.

Lubbock, for all the grief it receives here, is the 2nd largest city in the Big XII.

Thus, I'm not really seeing your arguement why Tech is not a "fit" for this conference. Also, I have never heard anyone say they would prefer TCU over Tech.

I can't stand 'em. I hate 'em. I wouldn't go to Lubbock if my life depended on it. But I wouldn't want to see them go from the Big XII. Everyone needs a Heidi(from Survivor Amazon) to hate.

Tech has whipped our ass lately in football.

Basketball (even with Knight) has been close to 50/50.

Baseball has been fairly even too. Since its inception, Tech has missed the Regionals one time, the Big 12 tournament one time, and has a Big 12 Title. A&M has missed the regionals 3 times, but has 2 Big 12 titles and a trip to Omaha in the same span. We're 11-10 over them in that period.

I'm don't like the sand monkeys any more than the next guy, but there's no reason to kick them out of the Big 12. We're not a conference that was made for Academic Bowl, it's an athletic conference. They've held their own and had marginal success in the major sports, which (on the whole) is much more than we can say for Baylor.

I used to want itt out of the Big XII, but now I believe Baylor should get the boot.

I hate Tech, but I like them in the Big XII, unlike a certain team Westward of our city..

Somebody on whornfans.com suggested replacing Baylor with a warm sack of dog crap. I second that motion.

"Maegnas is my name. I am the spider's bane."

How can any AG suggest kicking Tech out of the Big 12? Since the formation of the Big 12, they have been better than us in every major sport, with the exception of a couple of years in football and baseball. As for attendance, they aren't close to us in football, but they draw much better than us in basketball. Perhaps if we could start beating them on a regular basis, like we should, we could be in a position to discuss this. Even then, I don't see them going away and falling to the level of Baylor.

WestTexasAg--you could not be more wrong. Their overall athletic program is worthless:


Sears Cup Standings:
http://graphics.fansonly.com/confs/nacda/graphics/0203D1FinalStandings.pdf

11th out of 12 in DMN.
http://www.dallasnews.com/img/06-03/allbig12.pdf

BigDAg

Check my post again. I never said anything about their overall program. I'm talking the major sports only (football, baseball, basketball). Tech has been decent to good in all three the past decade.

BigDAg

Check my post again. I never said anything about their overall program. I'm talking the major sports only (football, baseball, basketball). Tech has been decent to good in all three the past decade.

I read it, and that is an inaccurate statement as well. Football and baseball we own them. Basketball they have been better, but really who has not?

How many Big XII championships / Big XII South Championships do they have in those major sports? Now count ours. They do not come close.

quote:

---

Football and baseball we own them.

---

Define "own". I suppose I just imagined all the problems we have had with Tech over the past decade. I guess I just dreamed that they have won 6 of the last 8 football games. What game you watchin'?

quote:

---

This means that out of 3500 colleges in America, Tech is ranked in the top 150 (at least). Remember, Tier 3 is listed alphabetically, so the WORST Tech could be is 150.

---

Tramp: speaking of ignorant statements.....please note that before you claim Tech is in the top 5% in academics (snicker) you should check your criteria for coming up with that number. The Tier I-Tier III status is measured in respect to universities that have certain criteria (research, phD, etc) -- of those, there are less than three hundred. Also, check the best 300 colleges/Universities in Princeton -- you are not even on there.

To claim getting into Tech is "stringent" is an ignorant comment. Every single person from my high school who applied to Tech got in (they publish acceptance rates at all the Universities within our high school).

1. Tech doesn't do well in the Sears Cup because we don't even field 30% of the sports that are listed.

2. The key to whether a school is contributing to a conference is the money it brings in via post-season play.

Since the Big XII formed, Tech has brought in money from 2 NCAA men's b-ball tourneys, 1 NIT, and 6 bowl games. We did not bring in any money last year, however, even though we went to a bowl.

These are the sports that matter financially. If you will notice, I didn't even mention women's b-ball, even though we have the 2nd highest attendance in the nation, have been in the NCAA's ever year, and are one of the few school's that actually profits from its women's program.

So, before you get all high and mighty, you may wish to see how Tech compares with the rest of the Big XII in terms of dollars brought in from post-season play, before you go spouting off that Tech isn't deserving as a member of this conference.

quote:

---

Define "own". I suppose I just imagined all the problems we have had with Tech over the past decade. I guess I just dreamed that they have won 6 of the last 8 football games. What game you watchin'?

---

Here is the game I am watching: your comment was that they were BETTER than us at major sports. You did not say head to head, you said BETTER. This would imply that their overall record in football and baseball is better than ours and they have enjoyed more success -- ie. Big XII titles. Because Tech wins their Super Bowl and prints Texas State Champs T-shirts does not mean they are better than Texas and Texas A&M. Hell, the fact that they printed those shirts ought to tell you what their goal is and what our goal is -- state championship versus Big XII and national championship.

What game you watching?

Has all that money Tech brings in helped increase the number of stamps available to the athletic department?

Tramp: sorry, I have to correct myself. My apologies, but it is not one of the best 351 best colleges:

http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankings.asp

quote:

---

To claim getting into Tech is "stringent" is an ignorant comment. Every single person from my high school who applied to Tech got in (they publish acceptance rates at all the Universities within our high school).

---

Big D Ag...that is laughable. "Everyone I knew got into Tech, thus, Tech has open admission."

Yeah, that is more valid than anything I say, even though I WORKED IN THE ADMISSIONS AT TECH.

You don't know how many kids I had to tell to go to community college first, because there was no way we could admit them into Tech. And this was 5 years ago. Since then, they've eliminated the summer admission program that most rejected applicants used to take advantage of. So don't you DARE have the audacity to tell ME that I am ignorant when it comes to Tech's admission's policies. I friggin' HATED with a passion telling kids NO.

You all don't have a clue. You think it's funny that kids are rejected admission. It's not funny when you are the one having to deliver the rejection. It's not funny seeing how many kids are either not prepared by their high schools for college admission, or are in competitive high schools where they are a victim of bad class rank even though they have good grades.

Regarding your other point...I was ranking Tech amongst ALL colleges in America. If you will notice, colleges are categorized as to the type. You have Research, Doctoral, Masters, etc. Tech is categorized in the top category. To be 3rd tier in the top category isn't bad. It still puts Tech as one of the Top 150 institutions in America. When you consider how many institutions there are, that is nothing to sneeze at.

It wasn't THAT many years ago that A&M was Tier 3....so get off your high horse.

Keep Tech, Baylor...hmmmmmm.

-------------------------------

The princeton review is worthless.

1. It is a commercial entity. It asks universities to advertise in their publication. If universitie's don't, they don't receive the questionaire that the Princeton Review uses for its ranking tabulation.

2. It's not associated with Princeton University, in case you missed that.

BigDAg

Look, I'm not saying I would trade places with them, but I am simply looking at their performance since joining the Big 12 vs. ours. We should be better than them in every major sport, with the possible exception of basketball. Reality is, we have not been much better than them in football since the formation of the Big 12. We have a Big 12 title, and another south division title, so that certainly gives us an edge, and I would not trade that. However, our overall record is probably not that much better than theirs, head-to-head aside. In baseball, we did make a trip to Omaha in 1999. With the exception of that season and last year, they have probably had the better team the rest of the years. As for basketball, we simply don't want to go there. They were good the first year or two of the league, then they were down, and now they have an NCAA and NIT appearance under Knight. Women's basketball is not even close. I hate it that Tech has enjoyed so much success against us lately. I ust don't try to spin it, and pretend we are much better than them somehow.

You still don't understand what Tier III means do you? For someone that worked in admissions you sure did not research very well.

No worries, I will help you:

This link will provide information on what National Universities - Doctoral are taken into account. As you will see, there are only 248 -- not the 3500 you were talking about. Out of these 248, they take the best 50 (Tier I), next 50 (Tier II) and so on.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/ranknatudoc_brief.php

I never said anything about its being funny to reject kids and bla bla bla.

Fact remains: everyone at my school (Jesuit in Dallas) was accepted if they applied to Tech.

Also, I don't know whether A&M was or was not Tier III, but when I applied it was Tier I.





[This message has been edited by BigD Ag (edited 9/10/2003 2:27p).]

BigDAg-

Why are you being so obtuse?

There are 248 "National Universities-Doctoral".

This is ONE classification, and the TOP classification. Thus, this is the top 248 colleges out of the 3500 in the nation.

The next classification is "Regional Universities-Doctoral". There are 4 tiers in this classification as well. This is where the Sam Houston's, SWT's, A&M Commerce's of the world are classified.

And so, and so on.

So, you mock Tech for being "Tier 3"....but fail to undestand that is Tier 3 in the TOP CLASSIFICATION.

So, like I said, out of 3500 colleges in the nation, to be Tier 3 in the TOP classification (or, at least #150), is not bad, and would put Tech in the OVERALL Top 5% (considering there are a total of 3500 colleges in the nation).

Why don't you understand this?

Now, regarding your high school. Jesuit, at least back in 1998, did not rank its graduating class, so Tech had a policy that it gave Top 10% status to students from certain elite private schools in the nation that didn't rank. This was a fair policy to give these students at elite schools as equal a chance with the Top 10% rule as other students.

That is why your friends were accepted. They went to Jesuit. There were only 4 or 5 private schools in Texas that Tech did this for.

No one likes ttu for anything.

*****************************************************
"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women."

Obtuse huh!?

Do you know what doctoral means? It means universities that offer phD programs. Therefore, if a University does not, it is not able to be one of these schools.

This, however, does NOT mean that University is not ranked better than the fleas. Learn the difference. There are Colleges that have better programs than Tech, A&M, UT, etc that are not part of the National Universities - Doctoral. Why can't you learn this?

If you want a ranking of COLLEGES, then go to Princeton Review and you will see you are not in the top ~350.

If you cannot figure this out then I can no longer help you.

PS: If you can get into Jesuit, you can get into Tech. That is all there is to it. Hell, our Jesuit average SAT score is higher than Tech's.





[This message has been edited by BigD Ag (edited 9/10/2003 3:12p).]

[This message has been edited by BigD Ag (edited 9/10/2003 3:13p).]

BigDAg-

You don't know what you are talking about.

You have to have a minimum number of doctoral degree offered and awarded to make it into certain categories. Not just one.

I have already explained the joke that is the Princeton Review. Did you not read my post???

Most universities strive to be in the Carnegie classification of Research/Doctoral I. This is the top classification. This is the classification that Tech is in. This is the classification that the majority of those 248 "National Universities-Doctoral" are in. This is why it is the top classification.

Which universities are "better than A&M, UT, and Tech" are you referring to that ARE NOT in this upper level classification??

Doctoral programs and research grants are how universities are judged by everyone except your beloved princeton review, which sends out questionaires to college students.

So...please...quit with this nonsense. Congratulations on your Tier II ranking. Take it for what it's worth. But, if you want any credence with ANYONE in higher education (which is my profession, and the field I earned a Masters in), leave the "Princeton Review" out of it.

I mean, the Princeton Review ranks "top party school" for Christ's sake....hardly a scholarly publication.