HandsyHobo
Well-Known Member
It satisfies my understanding of what you intended your statement to be, but I don't think I agree with it. I'm not sure how Mizzou or Notre Dame are more oriented towards choppin' wood than Texas.
Texas, the Big Ten, and the future
- Thread starter SteveDeace
- Start date
It satisfies my understanding of what you intended your statement to be, but I don't think I agree with it. I'm not sure how Mizzou or Notre Dame are more oriented towards choppin' wood than Texas.
83Hawk
Banned
That's fine. You don't have to agree, nor am I asking you to. I probably should have given my reasons in my first post, but I've done it so many times before I was just bein' lazy.
Although I list Missouri third....they are a DISTANT third.
WhitUp
Well-Known Member
I'm against those confernce allignments it's like Iowa Joined the Big 12 South. Indiana and Purdue we have no rivalry with, and we lose all our big ten rivals .Considering we could only play 2 cross division games a year, we would play wisky/minn/ Ohio state/penn state and michigan of the world one/two year stint every six to eight years That would suck. 14 teams is to much for football, your division becomes your conference at that point.
Think about if those divisions started next year we would play two teams over two year spand
2010 wisky @minn
2011 @wisky/ minn
2012 PSU/@OSU
2013 OSU/ @PSU
2014 MSU/ @ NW
2016 NW/@ MSU
2017 Mich/ @ Wisky
2018 @ Mich/Wisky
So we wouldn't play a team(Michigan in this scenario) until 2017. And once each two year stint with a team is over, you don't play them for six years and possibly 8(in this scenario we'd play minn 2011 and would play again 2019). Your Division becomes your conference at this point. 14 teams is just to many for football, you could have recruiting classes that never go to the big house or Ohio Stadium. If we just add a 12th team you'll play teams for two years and then off for two years. I would absolutely HATE this if this happened. It would be like Iowa changed conferences.
Think about if those divisions started next year we would play two teams over two year spand
2010 wisky @minn
2011 @wisky/ minn
2012 PSU/@OSU
2013 OSU/ @PSU
2014 MSU/ @ NW
2016 NW/@ MSU
2017 Mich/ @ Wisky
2018 @ Mich/Wisky
So we wouldn't play a team(Michigan in this scenario) until 2017. And once each two year stint with a team is over, you don't play them for six years and possibly 8(in this scenario we'd play minn 2011 and would play again 2019). Your Division becomes your conference at this point. 14 teams is just to many for football, you could have recruiting classes that never go to the big house or Ohio Stadium. If we just add a 12th team you'll play teams for two years and then off for two years. I would absolutely HATE this if this happened. It would be like Iowa changed conferences.
Last edited:
Mac50702
Well-Known Member
What we could do is go to 13 regular season games and/or take out a couple of OOC games. With teams like texas, oklahoma, osu, psu, mich, wiscy on your schedule, do you really need OOC games, besides for maybe a tune-up game against a smaller school? If you have 10 conference games a year you will be able to play the two year rotation schedule we have now and a championship game. I mean 2 OOC games a year and 11 in conference games, you would get a great shot at playing teams more often.
WhitUp
Well-Known Member
In that scenario I'd like to see a team run the table with Ohio state/PSU/OKY/Iowa/Wisky/Texas/Michigan on it and then play one of them a second time in the big ten championship game. And then when we don't run the table and some Big East or new Weaker 12 school makes the national championship game, cause they're undefeated playing nobody.
atxhawk
Well-Known Member
Can you elaborate on this? Exactly how rigorous are admission standards at the University of Iowa? Not graduation... admission. In my experience, not very.
- From Iowa? "Admitted."
- From Illinois/Chicagoland, Wisconsin, Minnesota or Missouri? "Sure, if you can pay up."
- From the coast? "Absolutely!"
- International? "Definitely!"
I'm not sure admissions at OU or UT could be much more lax.
...Unless that was sarcasm, in which case I regret wasting the 90 seconds it took me to spit this out.It's always a little difficult to tell on the internet.
In this case I believe he is talking about the admission standards for athletics, not for the general population. Getting into UT is not easy as it is a very good school with a high demand. In order to get in you have to be in the top 10% of your class, if you are in the top 10% you get automatically admitted. How many athletes would you guess finish in the top 10% of their class?
So the academic portion means nothing to you apparently?
83Hawk
Banned
Where did I say anything about academics? I just gave my opinion on the teams *I* thought were the best fit. There is nothing wrong with the academics of those 3 schools.
Don't try to play the "they have to be a member of (whatever the heck that group is..I can't remember the name of it)". That is not true. Yes, all the Big 10 schools are a part of it, but it is NOT a requirement. Someone posted a link on this once.
HandsyHobo
Well-Known Member
Ugh... you're right. This is obviously what he was referring to, so I apologize. I guess I hadn't had enough caffeine yesterday or something.
Caven
Well-Known Member
Barking Carnival — Blog — Being Bill Powers
Interesting take from a Texas writers angle. He actually gets that it is going to be about academics as much as athletics and walks through a lot of the potential roadblocks and potential resolutions.
Interesting take from a Texas writers angle. He actually gets that it is going to be about academics as much as athletics and walks through a lot of the potential roadblocks and potential resolutions.
Am I the only one who is not excited about the prospects of 14 teams in the Big Ten? As I get older I become more and more of a traditionalist and this would, IMO, destroy Big Ten tradition. Add 1 more team fine, but 3 more? No thanks. If Texas doesn't want to join alone, then fine. Nebraska, Missouri, etc would be more than good enough for the Big Ten. We don't need Texas to be successful if the price is becoming a 14 team league. That's my opinion.
Hawkfromnorwalk
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't be against a 14 team superconference but I am definitely against bringing Texas into the group. We don't need another team in the conference that dominates everybody. We already have tOSU that owns the conference most years. Adding Texas and putting them in a separate division than tOSU would pretty much lock in a Texas/tOSU title game every year in the conference. Iowa would be forced backwards and would probably be competing for mid-tier bowl games. If we add three more, make it Nebby, Mizzou, and somebody out east like Pitt of Rutgers. Say no to Texas...
ibahawkeye
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately I doubt that the Big 10 conference cares about Iowa and other teams of the conference going backwards. I agree with your points coming from an Iowa perspective but I'm afraid the conference willl feel different. In the end, as always, it comes down to money and bringing Texas in would bring in the $$$$.
tiggerhawk
Well-Known Member
Was thinking this same thing. There are some sports writers who also are astute about the primary business of colleges & universities, but Deace does not appear to be one of them from this blog or just about anything else I've heard him say touching on the academic goals of those schools that have major athletic programs.
If he has even a clue to the extent to which academics and research are the priorities of the BT universities, he certainly doesn't give any indication.
Of course TX would like to be invited to join the BT: just about every university in North America would love to have such an option available (with the exception of the Ivys, MIT, Cal Tech, Carnegie-Mellon, a few other high-power institutions that generate nine-digit sums in grants, contracts, patents, etc every year on their own). Thanks to the Tidelands Oil Act of the Eisenhower presidency, the U of TX (and TX A&M. the U of California (Berkeley, UCLA, etc), and to a lesser extent Florida & LSU have benefitted from billions of dollars from off-shore oil revenues; but even though it is one of best endowed and wealthiest of American universities, it does't make the-powers-that-be in Austin greedy to want to share in the immense pool of research funding shared by the BT member schools. The CIC (the consortium of the Big Ten schools, which still includes as a major player the U of Chicago) represents about SIX BILLION DOLLARS annually.
(To put that in perspective, all the talk that TX-Austin would be eager to leave the Big 12 for two or three times as much shared TV revenue in the BT, the aproximately $250 million shared by 11 BT teams--three times that shared by the Big 12 teams--well $250 million is roughly 2.5 per cent [1/40th] of CIC funding).
The U of TX wanted to join the BT a quarter of a century ago. Undoubtedly still does. But TX politicians made the decision then not to let them be separated from joined-at-the-hip TX A&M...and there doesn't seem to be any real evidence of a change of heart. The UT campus may be in walking distance of the state capitol, legislture, regents...but politically it it light years further away than College Station.
Last edited:
I didn't like the confernce split Deace did this morning (listed below) so I went to check milages mainly from UT to Minnesota, Wisconsin Indiana, & Purdue. I was having issues with trying to get some distances so I went with UT flying out of DFW.
so including driving to/from Airports to the respective campus
Iowa (897 miles)
Indiana (902 miles)
Wisconsin (1033 miles)
Purdue (1039 miles)
Minnesota (1064 miles)
I'd feel better with switching Wisconsin for Purdue. Just dont take into account both NW (1014) & Illinois (905) are closer to Texas then Wisconsin.
North;
Michigan
MSU
Minnesota
NW/Illinois
OSU
PSU
Wisconsin
South;
Iowa
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois/NW
UT
TA&M
Mizz/Neb
so including driving to/from Airports to the respective campus
Iowa (897 miles)
Indiana (902 miles)
Wisconsin (1033 miles)
Purdue (1039 miles)
Minnesota (1064 miles)
I'd feel better with switching Wisconsin for Purdue. Just dont take into account both NW (1014) & Illinois (905) are closer to Texas then Wisconsin.
North;
Michigan
MSU
Minnesota
NW/Illinois
OSU
PSU
Wisconsin
South;
Iowa
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois/NW
UT
TA&M
Mizz/Neb
creeksider
Well-Known Member
Texas to the Big Ten is not going to happen. Haven't these bloggers, writers and radio hosts ever looked at a map? They must have been too busy playing Donkey Kong to take a geography course. Location and academics will be the two main considerations for additions to the BT - the $ is third. Therefore, two scenarios:
1. Notre Dame. 12 teams. There you go.
2. Pitt/Nebby/Mizzou. 14 teams. Lock up PA. Add the KC, Omaha and Ogallala TV markets. 'Nuff said.
1. Notre Dame. 12 teams. There you go.
2. Pitt/Nebby/Mizzou. 14 teams. Lock up PA. Add the KC, Omaha and Ogallala TV markets. 'Nuff said.
