omfg. get it done or GTFO!

No kidding. Seems like a lot of posturing and posing from 4th grade drama queens to me....

surely the Big 12 wouldn't want to add more Texas teams ... they have that T.V. market covered with Texas,A&M and TT.

How do you figure? The teams involved aren't even commenting.

It's definitely driven by money, you're right about that. But to say the difference in academics isn't a big deal is just plain wrong.

Aside from dubious opinions from over-blown egos who think more highly of themselves than is warranted .... and a couple of schools who've sucked up to the right people in some "ratings" organizations, I'd say you are just plain wrong. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree though.

Part of the money outlay is tied to academics. The Big Ten's academics rank so well in large part because of the CIC fund. The annual disbursement to memeber schools from that is equal to or higher than Mizzous slice of the finding pie from the state legislature.

Being a member of that increases research prestige significantly. And with the reactor and the state-of-the-art life sciences center (which is mostly empty), Mizzou faces very real and tangible bonuses to it's ability to attract donors (which in turn helps pay for it's slice of the cic pie)

Rob:

The academics is a big deal. The big 10 has a far better rep (and I hold a Ph.D from Oklahoma). Two grads - 1 from big 12 and 1 from big 10 - all things being equal I would hire the one from the Big 10. The Oklahoma's of the world don't hold a candle to the N'Westerns or Ohio's.

Terry, when are things ever, truly, "all things being equal?" Seriously? Northwestern, yeah...okay. Otherswise not a huge difference. That's my point...

If we are talking about top 2-3% types in highly competitive market situations, you have a point. In 98% of the cases, most employers are swayed by other factors farther down the list--experience, interviews, recommendations and references, networking, and other factors...not to mention intangibles; at least when we are talking roughly comparable levels of schools.

There are two places where dick measuring of this type is important: reputations among ratings organizations and the "elite," and in academic conversations that are not too relevant in the real world to about 98% of the population (yeah, I know that means some research money--though having famous alumni and donors can trump that.)

There is a huge difference, however, between the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana and the likes of say Iowa State and Oklahoma State.

Academically speaking, the only Big 12 institution that is either on par with the Big 10 schools or compares favorably to them is Texas. Then you have Colorado, then Mizzou, then KU, then Nebraska.

Admittedly, the last three are clustered pretty close together.

http://www.cic.net/Libraries/Reports...2008.sflb.ashx

...from page 12:

I'm pretty sure famous alumni can't trump that.

6 billion each?

No. The smallest piece of the pie was $121 million, while the largest was $474 million.

I see. While that may be quite a chunk for schools like KU and MU who's endowment funds are 1.2 and 1.1 billion respectively, for schools like Texas, it's chump change.

True, but that's $121 million ON TOP OF normal funding sources.