I’ve never understood the academics-sports conference angle. How exactly does the academic reputation of Baylor, Texas Tech, UT, etc. affect ISU in the slightest?
And from the "I've heard this before" rumor mill ...
- Thread starter surly
- Start date
When it comes to research I'm assuming it's a big deal for several reasons. At the end of the day that is what these schools are there for.
What does Talen Horton Tucker have to do with this?
I've dealt in research for over a decade and I've never seen a single thing at ISU or any other university that suggests athletic conference has any impact whatsoever, or is even a thought.
Don’t waste your time, he ate up everything Nebraska pushed out in 2010.
The academic angle is a poor proxy for cultural fit.
Get rid of Baylor, add China. Imagine all the bitcoin we'll get if China is in the conference!
Jettison one of those and add UMKC. We need a kangaroo mascot in this conference.
Geeez. It'd be nice if we stayed on topic. On that note, another comment from inside the Pac12 is the presidents of the AZ schools see the academics of Pac12 as much better than the B12. And, after all, it is the presidents who in the end not only control the conference but also the schools. That said, $$$$ can be a very influential factor as it's widely established a successful AD positively affects the Universities' other resources. This conversation is not over ... at the highest levels.
Can we really have two wildcats in the same conference? I had an experience with two wildcats in college once. Almost sent me to the ER. Had to be on pills for a month. I don’t think this would be a good move.
That’s why the OP said northernmost outlier. WVU is the easternmost outlier, while Tech is the westernmost outlier, The point being that if they started cutting schools simply because they were outliers, we’d be on the list.
WVU is a good member. Their fans care—and their biggest scandal involves an occasional secondhand couch.
What does the Big 12 gain by adding these schools? What does ISU gain by adding these schools?
What I’m getting at is I like the 10 team conference, I don’t want to split revenue with more schools, and if the conference geographically moves southwest we are a natural school to be left out.
What I’m getting at is I like the 10 team conference, I don’t want to split revenue with more schools, and if the conference geographically moves southwest we are a natural school to be left out.
Last edited:
Rest assured, money, otherwise it doesn’t happen. Ultimately, that’s a stability and perception boost.
It’s not a slam dunk though. It would possibly be the end of adding a few other schools that would be more beneficial. I also wonder what would happen to the Pac12 with reduced inventory. Would they actually become more stable with less mouths to feed and only losing one market? Or would such a move in combination with California politics be the precipice of major changes/realignment?
Imo, at some point P5 football will be more like the NFL in organization. It’ll be interesting to see how conferences and new TV revenue mechanisms form.
Last edited:
Id be for no divisions - allows more flexibility scheduling and eliminates the possibility of a very strong and weak division (ex. BIG). Top two at the end of the year playing each other in the championship game
Ah- I agree with part of this. I would support divisions for regional scheduling & rivalry purposes only. Championship would feature the two top conference teams regardless of divisional finish. Tiebreakers would be determined by CFP ranking.
Just a little bit ironic when we start declaring which teams need to be removed from the conference (other than Baylor). Aren’t we glad these potential re-alignments didn’t happen during the McDermott/Chizik/Rhoads era?
If the CFL didn't fold when they had the Roughriders and the Rough Riders then nada es impossible
Latest posts
-
-
-
Five things (among many) to watch at Iowa State's spring game on Saturday- Latest: The Rob Gray
-
-