Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz
It's all about money. Nothing more, nothing less. People bring up the other bullshit to try to fool themselves and make the whole thing appear more legitimate.
|
Here was the original point, Jaz, and it remains accurate. The Big 10 didn't seek out Nebraska because of its stellar academic reputation. The conference added this school because of its behemoth football program, which is a revenue-generating machine. Regional exposure, opening new markets, etc...revenue is the common denominator.
Then you started talking about a school's overall operating budget, which is primarily driven by tuition, state appropriations, and grants. None of which have much to do with conference realignment. Tuition perhaps could enter the debate if a few additions would then increase the marketability and brand of a conference (individual school) enough to drive up enrollment.
Solid academic conferences have added lesser academic institutions over the past 12 months. Why? Pretty simple answer.
Finally, it's not just doctoral students who can apply for research funding, as you surely know, but I understand that you're at a point in your life that this is your primary focus (based on your initial fiscal analysis of a university, which seems to have been a point of discussion in Intro. to Grad. Studies at the southwest branch of KU--read U of A--, and your final post to me). |
No, here's the original point and posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz
Quote:
Originally Posted by jAZ
A great post on one of the boards I frequent had the following to share. It's from a trusted poster with ties to the Pac-12 office.
- Oklahoma has an invite to Pac-12... OSU is not an automatic invite with the Sooners. OU realizes that OSU might only be a part of certain scenarios.
- If OU comes and Texas balks, Mizzou and Kansas come into play. OSU and Tech are fillers.
- There is some interest on a play for Rice as a 4th addition as this has been floated to UT. The Houston market and Rice's academics are intrugiuing as a partner for Texas.
- The Texas to the ACC stuff is nonsense and a negotiation ploy being floated out by UT. The Pac 12 is the only option being considered by the UT.
- Longhorn Network, it is no impediment as ESPN would gladly drop it in favor of more Pac 12-16 games in the current deal. Apparently it's a financial mess all around.
- The dream scenario for Larry Scott is Texas, Oklahoma, Mizzou and Kansas. Four huge schools with 2 big football and 2 big hoops traditions. 3 AAU members and 5 big new TV markets along with 3 other good, medium sized markets.
- Mizzou badly wants to be in the Big 10, but views themselves as more SEC compatitable with less travel there too.
- Mizzou has talked to Scott and KU would do anything to make it happen as they want to stay West.
|
Yeah, this is complete bullshit. Rice?  . Academics aren't a factor in this equation. Not in the slightest bit. |
You said about my original post "this is complete bullshit".
You based your sweepingly wrong statement on the baseless fact that you just don't believe that anyone at the league office was talking about Rice as a +1 to Texas because of the academics and the Houston market.
You subsequently completely twisted the facts to make an ignorant argument based on your assumption that acadmics play no role in the decision making of an athletic conference.
You then went on to completely contradict your original sweepingly wrong statement by agreeing with HH, and I quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz
Quote:
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade
... In the ACC, it appears to be academic standing, location, and basketball. ...
The B1G strikes me as the classic big academics/big athletics college fraternity. I think academic standing standing or perception does matter to them.
|
Well said. I agree with all of this. |
You are wrong in one or the other of your statements. Either for some conferences it's about money AND academics... or it's about money, nothing more and nothing less.
You don't get to have it both ways just because you want to feel right.
And NONE of that changes the fact that the vast majority of the information I shared in my original post, which you called "complete BS", has since come out and been confirmed if not yet proven true.
And you have no way of knowing if Rice was being discussed by people at the league office, but given that my source seems to have been completely correct at this point, I am certain that it was discussed.
I am also now certain about what I initially just assumed. You didn't know what you are talking about when you called the whole post "complete BS".
What I don't understand is why you can't seem accept that you were almost certainly wrong. It's not like you are expected to know the discussions going on in the Pac-12 offices. Or expected to know how important academics and research funding are these days to both the funding and the branding of certain conferences. Or expected to believe some unconfirmed rumor posted and reposted on the internet.
It's perfectly reasonable to have assumed it was BS then.
But it's not so reasonable now.