Big 10 expansion talk heating up

[SeattleUte]

Yeah, I'm sure they're all just playing around. Athletics, no athletics -- who cares? :bsflag:

LOL. Next to America's research and academic programs football is like a pimple on a polar bear's back. What do you think makes this country great?

Just look at the dollars. You all think money is the be all and end all when citing sports' importance.

[SCcoug]

The Big 12 was founded in 1907, but unlike the Big Ten the Big 12 has changed its name over time to reflect the actual number of teams in the conference.

Ok so you are counting the combined tradition of 2 defunct conferences and one that is 13 years old to be comparable with the Big 10.

[jxncoog]

Big 12 will go get Ark. renewing old SWC match-ups.

[falafel]

LOL. Next to America's research and academic programs football is like a pimple on a polar bear's back. What do you think makes this country great?

I never said athletics was #1. I'm laughing at the assertion that these institutions "don't care much" for their sports.

[falafel]

Big 12 will go get Ark. renewing old SWC match-ups.

No way Ark leaves the SEC. But even if it did, who would the SEC pick up to replace them?

[woot]

Yeah, I'm sure they're all just playing around. Athletics, no athletics -- who cares? :bsflag:

That's a very naive reading of my thoughts, so I'll but it this way: Would UM more quickly give up its research programs or its athletic programs? Given a choice between the two, how loud would the laughter be in the board room as athletics got the axe? The academics at Michigan are comparable to those at Harvard, and better than most of the Ivy league. The same could be said for UCLA, Stanford, and to a lesser degree Texas, Washington, USC, MSU, OSU, etc. These schools have great athletic teams, but they wouldn't suffer for lack of D1 sports any more than Harvard or Yale have.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The Univiversity of Michigan's college of engineering alone has a budget 2.5 times as big a its entire varsity sports programs. I always assumed Texas had a simlar orientation. I can't believe you are pitting royalties form sweat shirts and baseball caps against the probably $1 billion in federal grants and contracts and other academic money Texas attracts because of its famous professors, not to mention bright students who pay tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and other outlays.

We need to clarify the debate. I am not arguing that sports are more important than academics. I am arguing that academic research budgets have nothing to do with the topic in question (expansion of the Big 10). I can also assure you that you don't win research grants based on your athletic conference affiliation.

[SeattleUte]

That's a very naive reading of my thoughts, so I'll but it this way: Would UM more quickly give up its research programs or its athletic programs? Given a choice between the two, how loud would the laughter be in the board room as athletics got the axe? The academics at Michigan are comparable to those at Harvard, and better than most of the Ivy league. The same could be said for UCLA, Stanford, and to a lesser degree Texas, Washington, USC, MSU, OSU, etc. These schools have great athletic teams, but they wouldn't suffer for lack of D1 sports any more than Harvard or Yale have.

Or more relevantly put, if ten of their famous professors throw a hissy fit over Mack Brown embarrassing the school somee way, however minor the infraction may seem, who carries the day? I said if he's pure he'll be fine. These DI titans fall all the time on the most technical of foibles.

People moan about the NCAA and its power. What is the NCAA?

[Jarid in Cedar]

I never said athletics was #1. I'm laughing at the assertion that these institutions "don't care much" for their sports.

Sport brand gives some of the big money spenders something to brag about, but all in all more people are impressed by someone who attends and donates to Yale than who attends/donates to OU/Texas/Utah/BYU/USU etc, etc, etc. Academic prestige trumps athletic prestige and it isn't even close.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's a very naive reading of my thoughts, so I'll but it this way: Would UM more quickly give up its research programs or its athletic programs? Given a choice between the two, how loud would the laughter be in the board room as athletics got the axe? The academics at Michigan are comparable to those at Harvard, and better than most of the Ivy league. The same could be said for UCLA, Stanford, and to a lesser degree Texas, Washington, USC, MSU, OSU, etc. These schools have great athletic teams, but they wouldn't suffer for lack of D1 sports any more than Harvard or Yale have.

These schools are also good evidence that the whole sports vs. academics debate (i.e., your board room scenario) is silly.

[falafel]

That's a very naive reading of my thoughts, so I'll but it this way: Would UM more quickly give up its research programs or its athletic programs? Given a choice between the two, how loud would the laughter be in the board room as athletics got the axe? The academics at Michigan are comparable to those at Harvard, and better than most of the Ivy league. The same could be said for UCLA, Stanford, and to a lesser degree Texas, Washington, USC, MSU, OSU, etc. These schools have great athletic teams, but they wouldn't suffer for lack of D1 sports any more than Harvard or Yale have.

Your interpretation of my interpretation of your thoughts was more laughable than my actual interpretation. These are, after all, institutions of higher learning, not professional sports teams combined with a few CE courses.

Equally laughable is that any of these institutions would ever come down to deciding between research and athletics.

[falafel]

Sport brand gives some of the big money spenders something to brag about, but all in all more people are impressed by someone who attends and donates to Yale than who attends/donates to OU/Texas/Utah/BYU/USU etc, etc, etc. Academic prestige trumps athletic prestige and it isn't even close.

Thanks Jarid. Not sure how this even responds to my post.

[jxncoog]

This isn't rumor, just opinion I've formed based on chatter.

SEC takes Miami or South Florida

If ACC loses Miami, they'd then take a South Florida

Just my opinion.

[beefytee]

The Big 12 was founded in 1907, but unlike the Big Ten the Big 12 has changed its name over time to reflect the actual number of teams in the conference.

Everyone knows wikipedia is definitive:

Although the Big 12 is essentially the Big Eight plus the four Texas schools, the Big 12 does not claim the Big Eight's history as its own.

[SeattleUte]

We need to clarify the debate. I am not arguing that sports are more important than academics. I am arguing that academic research budgets have nothing to do with the topic in question (expansion of the Big 10). I can also assure you that you don't win research grants based on your athletic conference affiliation.

I have read repeatedly that the Big 10 and the Pac 10 do care a great deal about academics when considering expansion. I'm sure you have as well. Academic reputation is not completely unrelated to conference affiliation. Look at the Ivy League. By the way, Northwestern has wanted to get into the Ivy League for a long time.