Jump to content

Official 2010-2011 NCAA Football Thread


Recommended Posts

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 09:35 PM)
Sorry, to be clear, I meant that those 4 schools (ISU, Bay, CU, UT) were the ones OF THE BIG 12 that were strongest academically. Saw an article today with a complex point formula used in the academic community, I think it was done for AAU schools only, and those schools I mentioned were all basically in the middle of the Big 10 pack. Not Northwestern by any stretch though.

 

Your line about the football stadium is key - that's the difference maker here.

 

thank you. Using US News and World Report is garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

As a Big Ten fan, I'm happy about the possible expansion. As a midwesterner, I hate seeing a midwest conference breaking up. Who knows what'll happen on the east coast with possible conference relocations, but leaving 5 major conferences while 3 1/2 are in the east (counting half of the Big Ten) seems crazy.

 

As far as Iowa State. They have pretty good women's athletics in baskeball and volleyball, haha. It is also true that they are good in academics. Unfortunately I don't see them being invited into the Big Ten unless the Big Ten needs a 16th team or something. Adding another Iowa team doesn't do much for the Big Ten Network, and since ISU hasn't been great in men's basketball and football also doesn't help the Cyclones' case.

Edited by WilliamTell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (daa84 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 08:38 AM)
id imagine nebraska will be the heavy favorite year in and year out in baseball in the big 10/11/12 (whatever it will be called)

Not that most people care about baseball, but Nebraska just finished last in the Big 12 and didn't qualify for the conference tournament for the 2nd straight year. They're a historically good program, but not in recent years.

 

My favorite part of this saga is the non-stop rumors. They get more absurd by the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 12:27 PM)
Football and academics are the top 2 motivating factors at the moment.

 

If Kansas had a scholastic reputation like Michigan, it would already have been in the Big 10. Same problem Missouri is experiencing.

 

The Big 10 just does not seem willing stray to far from its academic priorities.

You can't talk about academics and bring in Nebraska. Saying academics matter is a farce. AAU is all the Big Ten wants and there are plenty of those in consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nebraska is slightly lower than ISU, tied with Kansas, and slightly above Missouri (According to any college reporting site ive seen. I understand you dont like US News, but here are the ranks: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews....onal-top-public) If you can provide me some links where any of those schools are drastically better than Nebraska in academics, Id love to see it.

 

Its not like your talking about Texas Tech or something.

 

Academics absolutely a consideration. Its not the "only" consideration, but they are a consideration. Because Nebraska is similarly ranked to ISU, Kansas, Missouri and because Nebraska is perceived as a University on the rise (Warren Buffet money) and has a far stronger football tradition, its the choice.

 

Youre acting like ISU, Missouri and Kansas are Stanford and Nebraska is ASU. Any of these schools would be on the low end for academics. None of them make a great case academics wise, which is why you look to the other criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 04:46 PM)
I'm sorry, but academics has nothing to do with these decisions

 

It isn't the biggest factor but academics is certainly a factor for the Big 10 to take a school. There are several SEC schools the Big 10 wouldn't take from an academic perspective even though they would be good for the conference athletically. The Big 10 and other conferences aren't making these decisions based on the academics of the schools they are inviting but I can basically guarantee the Big 10 is looking at the academic reputation and has some minimum standards for the schools they are inviting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 04:56 PM)
Nebraska is slightly lower than ISU, tied with Kansas, and slightly above Missouri (According to any college reporting site ive seen. I understand you dont like US News, but here are the ranks: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews....onal-top-public) If you can provide me some links where any of those schools are drastically better than Nebraska in academics, Id love to see it.

 

Its not like your talking about Texas Tech or something.

 

Academics absolutely a consideration. Its not the "only" consideration, but they are a consideration. Because Nebraska is similarly ranked to ISU, Kansas, Missouri and because Nebraska is perceived as a University on the rise (Warren Buffet money) and has a far stronger football tradition, its the choice.

 

Youre acting like ISU, Missouri and Kansas are Stanford and Nebraska is ASU. Any of these schools would be on the low end for academics. None of them make a great case academics wise, which is why you look to the other criteria.

I didn't say they were worse, but as you just said they aren't different academically so it's other factors that were the difference. Therefore, academics were not a factor in the decision to take Nebraska.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think youre misinterpreting my argument.

 

Im not saying that when it came to those 4 schools, academics were the factor.

 

I am saying when the Big 10 made a list of "all potential candidates" academics were a major factor.

 

So academics had a part in the decision of who to consider in expansion, it probably played very little role in actually selecting Nebraska over 3 very specific schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 05:11 PM)
I think youre misinterpreting my argument.

 

Im not saying that when it came to those 4 schools, academics were the factor.

 

I am saying when the Big 10 made a list of "all potential candidates" academics were a major factor.

 

So academics had a part in the decision of who to consider in expansion, it probably played very little role in actually selecting Nebraska over 3 very specific schools.

Except they have a dozen or so schools within a few hundred miles of the Big Ten's current territory that fit the academic standards if Nebraska was accepted. Nebraska is an average state school. State schools are usually good academically. Missouri, Kansas, etc. are average state schools as well. I'm saying that the Big Ten's academic standards didn't eliminate many BCS caliber schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on how you define "many". My guess is that half of the SEC was eliminated, the bottom few Pac-10, the bottom few Big-12, etc.

 

I guess I dont understand what the argument is.

 

Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, ISU are all similar academically...

 

So the Big 10 should have added them by US News ranking?

 

Where exactly are we going with this argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 04:36 PM)
Not that most people care about baseball, but Nebraska just finished last in the Big 12 and didn't qualify for the conference tournament for the 2nd straight year. They're a historically good program, but not in recent years.

 

My favorite part of this saga is the non-stop rumors. They get more absurd by the day.

 

Now the Big 12 is apparently meeting Saturday in Dallas to see if the conference can be saved by adding two new teams. This of course coming from cash-cow Texas. I'm so tired of all this s***.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he's saying academics didn't matter if nebraska was accepted.

 

I'd, of course, make the argument that the education difference between all these schools is very low, so what you are asking is what schools specifically and arbitrarily raise standards and prices to price out poorer or less academically qualified students, and then USN and WR will bow down, and say "how many flat screens do you have? 4500! My God! You are an AMAZING school!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 06:42 PM)
Newest rumor is Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and Mizzou to the Big East.

Holy Moly. The Big East adding Kansas would be crazy for the Basketball in that conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 06:43 PM)
Holy Moly. The Big East adding Kansas would be crazy for the Basketball in that conference.

 

12 team football, 20 team basketball conference.

 

Not just Kansas, but Kansas State, Mizzou and ISU have also spent time in the Top 10 in the last decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 04:56 PM)
Its not like your talking about Texas Tech or something.

 

How did Texas Tech become the whipping boy in all this Big 12 conference talk? Tech was founded in 1923 and every single school in the Big 12 and Big 10 have had at least a 33 year head start in the Big 12 and 53 years in the Big 10. Hell, Indiana and Michigan have been around over 100 years longer.

 

Kansas State and Okie State are the same academically as Tech currently, yet are much older institutions and don't seem to receive any academic flack. It's pretty humorous. Texas Tech never had ANY interest or hope of joining the Big 10, yet article after article insisted Tech would have to be included with Texas and A&M.

 

Oh well, Texas Tech is on the verge of becoming a Tier 1 research university within the next year.

 

Now the question seems to be whether A&M will join the SEC or Pac 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 07:26 PM)
How did Texas Tech become the whipping boy in all this Big 12 conference talk? Tech was founded in 1923 and every single school in the Big 12 and Big 10 have had at least a 33 year head start in the Big 12 and 53 years in the Big 10. Hell, Indiana and Michigan have been around over 100 years longer.

 

Kansas State and Okie State are the same academically as Tech currently, yet are much older institutions and don't seem to receive any academic flack. It's pretty humorous. Texas Tech never had ANY interest or hope of joining the Big 10, yet article after article insisted Tech would have to be included with Texas and A&M.

 

Oh well, Texas Tech is on the verge of becoming a Tier 1 research university within the next year.

 

Now the question seems to be whether A&M will join the SEC or Pac 10.

 

Yeah, don't take the redheaded stepchild title away from ISU.

 

Reporter from Washington Examiner:

 

#Kansas, #KansasState, #IowaState and #MO will talk to the #BigEast about an expanded #BigEast.

about 1 hour ago via mobile web

 

I can confirm that Kansas, Kansas State, MO. and Iowa State are starting talks with The Big East.A 12 team FB Conf & a 20 BB cinf.

about 1 hour ago via mobile web

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...