Last edited:
Texas already in talks with Big Ten (link)
- Thread starter Icarus
- Start date
skinnykilmer17
Well-Known Member
Really? Do you think Texas is worried about improving their academic standing? I would encourage you to go to this website:
University of Texas at Austin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but here are just a few tidbits if you don't have the time:
The University of Texas at Austin is consistently ranked as one of the top public universities in the country, with highly-regarded programs in a variety of fields. Nationally, the university ranked 47th according to U.S. News and World Report,[38] 15th among public universities in 2009.[39]
University of Iowa=26th best public university in the nation — U.S. News & World Report, 2008 edition (Maybe Texas could improve our academic standing).
As of 2010, U.S. News and World Report ranked forty-three UT graduate programs and specialties in the top ten nationally, and another fifty-three others ranked in the top 25.[45] Among these programs include the seventh-ranked College of Education,[46] the 10th-ranked Cockrell School of Engineering,[47] and the 15th-ranked School of Law.[48] Four UT graduate programs were ranked first in the nation, including Accounting and Petroleum Engineering.[45] While the university does not have a medical school, it houses medical programs associated with other campuses and allied health professional programs, which has contributed to the College of Pharmacy's number two ranking by U.S. News and World Report.[49][50] Additionally, UT Austin's library system contains over 8 million volumes and is the fifth-largest academic library in the nation.[51]
Although the school is one of the nation's largest research universities, it has invested appropriate time and money to create nurturing undergraduate honors programs that are among the most respected in the country. For example, many students in the Plan II Honors Program become Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, or Fullbright Scholars. There are 6 honors programs spanning most academic fields:
A 2005 Bloomberg survey also ranked the school #5 among all business schools and #1 among public business schools for the largest number of alumni who are S&P 500 CEOs.[65] Similarly, a 2005 USA Today report ranked the university as "the number one source of new Fortune 1000 CEOs".
Except for MIT, UT Austin attracts more federal research grants than any American university without a medical school.[14] For FY 2009, the university exceeded $590 million in research funding[14] and has earned more than 400 patents since its founding.
Significant research is carried out at UT's auxiliary campus, the J.J. Pickle Research Campus (PRC). The PRC is home to the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) which operates the Ranger supercomputer, one of the most powerful supercomputers in the world.[77] The Microelectronics Research Center, member of the NSF’s National Nanotecnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), houses micro and nanoelectronics research and features a 15,000 square foot (1,400 m2) cleanroom for device fabrication. Founded in 1946, UT’s Applied Research Laboratories (ARL:UT) at PRC has been responsible for the development or testing of the vast majority of high frequency sonar equipment used by the Navy and in 2007 was granted a ten year contract by the Navy, funded up to $928 million.[78][79]
Energy is a major research thrust of the university. In 2009, UT Austin was selected by the Department of Energy to host two of the nation’s 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs), each funded for $15 million over five years, focusing on battery and solar cell technology and on geological carbon dioxide storage.[74] Capitalizing on the university's algae collection—which is among the world’s largest—is a new $25 million DARPA-funded effort towards conversion of algal oil into biofuel.[75] In July 2009, UT founded the Energy Institute, led by former Under Secretary for Science Raymond L. Orbach, to organize and advance multi-disciplinary energy research at the university.[76] Other major interdisciplinary institutes at the university include the Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, the Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences (ICES), the Texas Materials Institute, and the Center for Nano and Molecular Science and Technology (CNM).
The university has an endowment of $7.2 billion, out of the $16.11 billion (according to 2008 estimates) available to the University of Texas. This figure reflects the fact that the school has the largest endowment of any public university in the nation.
The university is one of only two public universities in the U.S. that have a triple-A credit rating from all three major credit rating agencies, along with the University of Virginia.[82]
The University of Texas System and the Texas A&M University System; today, however, its revenues account for less than 10 percent of the universities' annual budgets. This has challenged the universities to increase sponsored research and private donations. Privately funded endowments contribute over $2 billion to the University's total endowment value.
Yes, any university would like to increase their research dollars and they may go up?? but don't you think private donations would go down due to a lot of ****** off fans?
Everyone is looking for reasons why Texas should join the Big Ten. Improving academic standing shouldn't be one of them. Look to see what is in your cup before you drink the kool-aid.
HawkeyeNTexas
Well-Known Member
skinny thank you for the fun facts. Half of which I didn't read.
skinnykilmer17
Well-Known Member
skinny thank you for the fun facts. Half of which I didn't read.
You are very welcome. But just half? So much work...
Why do so many want this to happen? I care about Iowa, not the Big Ten as a whole. If this happens, Iowa may never win a Big Ten Championship again. It's hard enough as it is. Also look for Nebraska to have a much easier path. Not good for someone(me) who has to hear about them all the time.
The thought of playing Texas A&M every year makes me want to vomit all over myself. Who wants to play TAMU every year, and see tOSU every 4 years or so? The domino effect would be ridiculous too. You would end up with 3 or 4 "Super" conferences, and a bunch of non-bcs level conferences. Stupid. It would also be extremely tough to win a conference title. Gotta say, this expansion talk isn't looking so great to me anymore. The Big 10 has a good thing going right now, why ruin it?
tiggerhawk
Well-Known Member
This isn't qite what Nostradamus wrote. But three gypsies in Rumania heard it from a hermit in Transylvania. so it must have some credence...
Even if DeCouncy andf Rittenberg are not quite as knowledgeable or have the insignt of the anchor-kid at the PS 122 kindergarten. But then even if no sensible person would ask either the day of the week and anticipate an answer that was within three days of accurate either way, if they are on the same bloodhound path with crack reporters from the internationally renown Lawrence, Kansas Birdcage Newz, why should we doubt them?
I, for one, only have one troubling concern. Sometimes, given the primitive culture of the Big 12 region and the slow-on-the-take mental responses of the local primitives, you have to wonder about just how quickly these Clark Kents & Lois Lanes got on the big story of 1986--you know, twenty-five years ago when there were actual overtures back & forth between the BT office in Chicago and UT administrators in Austin, back when UT got interested in joining the BT and was slapped down by texas politicians, the state regents, the legislature, and told they weren't going anywhere, not to the Big Ten ball or anywhere else unless the homely sister, TX A&M, went along the entire way.
Last I heard, the spinster sister TX A&M is alive and healthy--or at least as close as that benign condition as you can get and still be in Texas and in the Big Twelve. So have to doubt that there is much reason to get excited about a story that is a quarter century out of date...
Mentions of Texas legislature are silly. 1986 was a quarter of a century ago. This world has changed and so has the face of Texas politics. The good ole boy daddy footbawl mentality in Texas and its lawmakers is long gone. If the deal looks good to both sides it will happen. And oh what a dream it would be to see Texas in the Big telve. The icing on the cake would be witnessing the demise of the big 12 which would leave the jealous halfbreed stepsister in Ames without a playground to get bullied around on.
atxhawk
Well-Known Member
They were talking about this briefly on Fox 7 down here this morning, yes, Fox 7 is the Austin Fox affiliate. Fox, as you may remember, is co-owner of the Big Ten Network. They interviewed a couple of the sports radio hosts here one of whom said that it wouldn't be beneficial either academically or financially for UT. He obviously hasn't seen the numbers and rankings of the schools. I was also talking to a Longhorn friend of mine the other night and he was giddy at the thought of getting out of the Big 12 and into the Big Ten. May actually have to call in to the sportsradio station today.
HawkeyeNTexas
Well-Known Member
Living in Dallas, I wouldn't mind if any of the Texas schools joined the Big Ten. Not going to happen though. I'd settle for a home/away series with A&M, TCU, or Texas though. At least it would give me a chance to go to a game.
QUOTES A BUNCH OF COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, THEN:
Yes, any university would like to increase their research dollars and they may go up?? but don't you think private donations would go down due to a lot of ****** off fans?
Everyone is looking for reasons why Texas should join the Big Ten. Improving academic standing shouldn't be one of them. Look to see what is in your cup before you drink the kool-aid.
First of all, the quote you highlighted was not from me, but from the author of the post in the link.
Second, school rankings and almost everything else you got from Wikipedia besides the research dollars have nothing to do with the point being made. It has been pointed out a billion times over the last month or so that Texas is unhappy with the academic standards of the Big 12. As you note, they could significantly increase their research dollars while joining more prestigious academic associations.
Nobody said that Texas is desperately in need of improving their academics, or that somehow their US News rankings would rise by joining the Big Ten (which would be completely irrelevant as well, even if true).
Would Texas benefit academically from joining the Big Ten? I think the answer is obviously yes. That is the only point being made. You seem to be arguing that the benefit is negligible, which is a completely different argument that I would still disagree with.
As for "drinking kool-aid," I'm not really sure what you are referring to. Nobody in this thread has said Texas is going to join the Big Ten. I haven't said anywhere that Texas should join the Big Ten for their own sake. I have said, however, that there would be both financial and academic benefits to joining the conference. Whether those benefits are great enough for them to make the switch remains to be seen, and it is still much more likely that they remain in the Big 12.
Texas would undoubtedly be in a better academic position in the Big Ten. The only argument against that I can find in your post is the claim that they would lose private donations in excess of that benefit (which I don't think is measurable anyway).
HandsyHobo
Well-Known Member
Don't take this the wrong way, skinny, but I really don't think you understand the academic (read: most important) angle of what is being discussed here. There is absolutely no question that UT becoming a member of the Big Ten Conference would explode their academic standing. The Big Ten is by far the richest conference, and their academic institutions are the beneficiaries of that. Professors in Austin have wet dreams about accessing the CIC's resources.
To argue that any new revenue gained would be offset by a lack of alumni support is completely baseless. Short-sighted BS like that doesn't really happen, and if it does, it's never for more than a few years. It's not a legitimate point of contention.
To argue that any new revenue gained would be offset by a lack of alumni support is completely baseless. Short-sighted BS like that doesn't really happen, and if it does, it's never for more than a few years. It's not a legitimate point of contention.
Caven
Well-Known Member
A school could be ranked number 1 in everything and STILL improve their academics by entering into the CIC. Moving into an association with better academic schools with the sharing agreements that the Big 10 has in place will improve any schools academics. You might not see an improvement in your actual rankings but your academic quality will still go up.
latrans
Well-Known Member
Yes, it was an absolutely serious comment. I think you should look at Skinny's post to get a better idea of what kind of money goes into operating a major university, 10 million is nothing. I understand that it would be a lot of money for the athletic dept but this is not the athletic depts. decision and I would say again that the risk of losing alumni donations would have to be considered.
Does the athletic dept. get to keep all that money or does it just go the university in general? I don't know.
It's not like the money from the football TV contract just gets thrown into a pool with every other dollar the university receives from every other source. Are you saying the university doesn't care about athletics revenue because it gets so much research money? The Texas AD won't make the final decision, but you can bet the school's president won't sneeze at a 40% increase in the departments revenue. The school's endowment really has no bearing on this decision, and as far as I can tell Skinny's post doesn't have anything to do with anything. Texas is a good university with better than adequate funds . . . . so? They aren't going to pass up an opportunity to improve their research opportunities and athletic department revenue just because each of those are already pretty good. The fact that $10 million isn't a ton compared to their $7 billion endowment is absolutely irrelevant.
This guy says that Texas officials have told him there will be no move:
Texas headed to the Big Ten? Not likely
I'm not sure increased travel time is really enough to kill this by itself, but that seems to be his conclusion, not that of his sources. It seems more like a couple people just said "not going to happen" and he speculated the rest. Hopefully something with more depth will come out eventually.
Texas headed to the Big Ten? Not likely
I'm not sure increased travel time is really enough to kill this by itself, but that seems to be his conclusion, not that of his sources. It seems more like a couple people just said "not going to happen" and he speculated the rest. Hopefully something with more depth will come out eventually.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
A while back Jon & Steve were talking about expanding the Big 10 on their show. They made the point that the Big 10 would go to 12 with bringing in Notre Dame. But, if not Notre Dame, they thought the logical move for the Big10 would to bring in 3 teams to make a 14 team super conference. This is intriguing. This is because, financially speaking, it would do nothing just to add another team besides Notre Dame to make 12. Would not help the Big 10 that much. Bringing in 3 would be a wise financial move.
My question is what if the Big 10 was able to pull Texas & Missouri from the Big 12 then pull Pittsburgh from the Big East.
My three teams if I were to guess: Texas
Missouri
Pitt
That would be one heck of a conference & pull a lot of viewing markets & really put a stranglehold on the other conferences.
My question is what if the Big 10 was able to pull Texas & Missouri from the Big 12 then pull Pittsburgh from the Big East.
My three teams if I were to guess: Texas
Missouri
Pitt
That would be one heck of a conference & pull a lot of viewing markets & really put a stranglehold on the other conferences.
