Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bruininthebay

Pac 12 doesn't care about Texas and Oklahoma going to the SEC - convince me I'm wrong.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Someone said:

I suppose what I was getting at was 16 teams in that conference and the conference reaching all over the map

you had these teams

East: Memphis, Houston, SMU, Baylor/TCU, New Mexico, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Colorado State
West: Washington State, Oregon State, Arizona State, BYU, Boise State, San Diego State, Fresno State, UNLV

here is how I see it

If WSU, Oregon State, and ASU are left from the PAC 12 they I see a good chance that a number of other PAC 12 schools will be left in addition to those three....I would say you could pick from Cal, AU, CU, Stanford, and Utah

The Big 10 is 14 now so if they went to 20 with only 6 from the PAC 12 that still leaves 6 in the PAC 12 and IMO this is all about an "athletics" play. There is going to be no "well those Stanford and Cal academics though" involved. CU is just not competitive, I am not sure Utah moves the needle, and AU makes a 7th when the Big 10 would need 6.

Also I am not sure where you are putting WVU, ISU, Tech. KU.

Next with what you have above there is an issue of simple 'bulk". I do not buy into the idea that there is this mass of 16 teams out there that all bring near equal value and more importantly that they all have to be together especially to bring that value. I might even say that all of them together lessens the value and somewhat significantly. There is always the issue of there are only so many TV channels and only so many hours in a day and week to show football especially when anyone will be up to watch. Few people besides me watch football all day and then look forward to an Hawaii game that kicks off at 11 at night so I can roll to 2am with more football and listen to that funny Hawaii announcer roll those names off perfectly.

So when you are looking at teams that were "in a much better place" and now they are not people need to stop pretending that the answer is tog et this big ass life raft and just start telling everyone out there "pile in". In fact what would be the smart thing to do is look at some of them and say "here let me toss you this anchor". So this idea that you look out there and find 16 programs that you think might be a bit under valued where they are or that have maybe the same or a little less (or even a bit more) value than you and you just try and jump all in with then is a horrible idea to me. The goal is to get ahead and win not to simply exist.

Then there is the simple FACT (that no one ever wants to believe) that you can dramatically over saturate a market when you foolishly think you are going to "dominate it". So in the line up that you have if I was TCU and Baylor I might consider SMU or UH, but I damn sure would not be looking to add both. At some point you need to live with the idea that if you are going to have success then you and your program are going to have to bring that success you are not going to get it by dragging in a bunch of schools right around you and hoping that some of the carry the freight and maybe if you are lucky then you will be one of them.

TCU in particular proved this FACT by telling the CUSA "see ya would not want to be ya" when SMU and Rice were added. TCU did not want to be known as the "dumped from the SWC boys" or "the Texas gang" they wanted to be known as TCU. And that paid off for them in a Rose Bowl win and a #2 ranking and an invite to the Big 12.

So looking at what you have if I was TCU, Baylor, OkState and KSU (not sure where the others are) and I was looking at BYU, ASU, WSU, and Oregon State......well provided the money is there that is the first answer of course. So that is 8 teams there.

Then you have UNM, CSU, Boise, SDSU, Fresno, and UNLV listed from the MWC......well you already have two western teams so that makes sense to look at more of them.

Well I think facilities wise CSU is there and well academics is there too so lets say CSU is in. Now you are at 9. If you want to say simply winning then Boise so now you are at 10. Plus budget wise (removing all academic side subsidies) Boise is behind only Cincy, UCF, and UConn from the G5 and CSU is only behind Memphis after that. So again that works.

Now you are looking at Nevada (not on your list) and then Fresno State and then UNLV in terms of unsubsidized budgets.

I think Fresno would be the call to make based on facilities and the sustained winning they have shown they are capable above and the "anyone anywhere" attitude.

So now you are at 11. I think Memphis would be the call at that point based on budget and facilities and because they are apart from some of the markets of other teams. So now you are at 12.

That leaves UNLV, SMU, Houston, and UNM. At that point I think you stop because you have to ask yourself what are you as an individual program getting by having your conference add more of these schools. Well you are getting competition for TV slots, you are getting competition for recruits, you are getting competition for sponsorships and add dollars, and even for casual fans if you go with the idea of "winners are popular. At some point you just have to ask how does adding more of the same at "break even" dollars really help each individual program and in my opinion it does not help the individual programs and in fact it harms them and the conference.

We can use another example that everyone should be familiar with the WAC/MWC airport flyaway. Looking back at the MWC well 8 teams out of 16 looked around one day and said WTF we have a bunch of teams here just glad to cash checks and run a team out they and they GTFO.

The results the first years were pretty damn good and carried on and really even after going to 12 teams the results were about the same number of ranked teams as when there were 9 and 10 teams in he conference.....so WTF are you going to get for adding 4 more....I say a lot higher risk of being the WAC than the MWC.

I know that was long winded, but that was my point that the Big 12 teams need to think of themselves individually and their individual programs and they need to avoid the massive pitfall of "hey here are all these similar programs lets all jump in together and hope that some of us end up worth a shit" or 'hey lets ignore the competition for TV slots and bowl games and the even money and just add more and more of the same!"

At some point you have to set the expectations that you are going to bring the value the value is not going to come because you are with 15 other programs that are all in the same place as you just looking for a life raft. If it is sink or swim or get in the boat and motor off vs getting in the life raft and floating around aimlessly well toss someone an anchor and motor off in the boat.

So to me the Big 12 teams even the most left over of left overs need to be very careful and resist the "well more means we survive if some leave" because for most that means you watch some eventually leave and not think twice about leaving you.

I don’t think the BIG in anyway does it and I’m not certain the PAC schools want to join the CIC as the PAC has a majority of AAU schools and no current CIC equivalent.   
 

But assume the Big wants to go National.  The groups work much better at 24:

East: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Pitt, Syracuse 

Lakes: Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, NorthWestern, Purdue, Indiana 

Planes: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado

West: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Someone said:

but you had laid out this as well

East: Memphis, Houston, SMU, Baylor/TCU, New Mexico, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Colorado State
West: Washington State, Oregon State, Arizona State, BYU, Boise State, San Diego State, Fresno State, UNLV

cut 4 of them especially the ones crowding up some states and go with 12......4 more mouths even if they are break even are just not needed....let them sink or swim on their own

Well which 4 would you cut and where?  

WSU, OSU and ASU will be adamant about annual trips to CA where many of their recruits  come from.   You aren’t dumping a Big 12 brand or BYU or Boise or CSU.   The east will be as adamant about annual trips to Texas.

so you could cut 

Memphis, SMU or Houston, New Mexico, UNLV I suppose but I think you want those markets and to be at 16 like other major conferences.   16 also reduces travel for all your minor sports.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I don’t think the BIG in anyway does it and I’m not certain the PAC schools want to join the CIC as the PAC has a majority of AAU schools and no current CIC equivalent.   
 

But assume the Big wants to go National.  The groups work much better at 24:

East: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Pitt, Syracuse 

Lakes: Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, NorthWestern, Purdue, Indiana 

Planes: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado

West: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona,

 

I think there is a situation (not a great one for college football) where the Big 10 will feel like they have to do something

I am pretty sure the phones to the USC AD are on fire fight now and will not stop ringing and probably to their academic side as well asking what USC is going to do about all of this to keep up

the NIL is a huge factor in all of this....I can almost see a situation where the Big 10 is looking at USC being available (and then 3 others at least that will have to make a move) and the Big 10 is asking themselves what happens of we say no

what happens if the Big 10 says no and then the SEC says yes......or the ACC says yes

what happens if the PAC 12 is a shell of it's former self and The Rose Bowl game is still there with the Big 10 in half of it

they may well be looking at a situation of "we do not want to do this. but the worst that can happen from doing it is light years better than the worst from not doing it"

YOU WANT TRADITION? WELL......HERE 'TIS......The University of North Texas has football wins over: Texas Tech U......Rice U......Baylor U......TCU......SMU......Houston......Oklahoma State......San Diego St.......Kansas State......Arizona State.......Colorado State......Brigham Young......Oregon State......Florida......Indiana......Tennessee (a 6 & 5 SEC team & still our biggest win in school history)......Boise State......Louisville......Cincinatti (our last match-up with UC was a UNT bowl win), plus FOUR (4) NCAA FBS level Bowl Games (one while having a losing season record) in this millennium's 1'st decade while North Texas has had ONE NCAA Division 1 Top 20 ranking.

The North Texas Mean Green Village (located between 2 Texas interstates & which a recent TxDOT study said 200,000 vehicles drive by it daily) is a multi-acre olympic style village of athletc venues*dorms*computer study centers, etc, topped off with what GIL BRANDT: The Father of Modern NFL Scouting who described UNT's Apogee Stadium as a "Tah Mahal of a College Football Stadium" with Brandt adding... 'and I've seen every NCAA D1 FB stadium in the USA." All this along with UNT's fabulous 10,000 seat Super Pit--the Best & Largest on-campus college basketball venue in the D-FW Metroplex......AND THREE PONDS AND A BRIDGE!!!!!

 

This signature is the sole property of Someone and any use of this signature without express written consent of Someone is strictly forbiden by penalty of law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Someone said:

 

I think there is a situation (not a great one for college football) where the Big 10 will feel like they have to do something

I am pretty sure the phones to the USC AD are on fire fight now and will not stop ringing and probably to their academic side as well asking what USC is going to do about all of this to keep up

the NIL is a huge factor in all of this....I can almost see a situation where the Big 10 is looking at USC being available (and then 3 others at least that will have to make a move) and the Big 10 is asking themselves what happens of we say no

what happens if the Big 10 says no and then the SEC says yes......or the ACC says yes

what happens if the PAC 12 is a shell of it's former self and The Rose Bowl game is still there with the Big 10 in half of it

they may well be looking at a situation of "we do not want to do this. but the worst that can happen from doing it is light years better than the worst from not doing it"

Yeah I like my plan much better as it actually restores rivalries and is much better for the game.  I’m sure ESPN is behind this move and no organization has been worse for College Football than ESPN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Well which 4 would you cut and where?  

WSU, OSU and ASU will be adamant about annual trips to CA where many of their recruits  come from.   You aren’t dumping a Big 12 brand or BYU or Boise or CSU.   The east will be as adamant about annual trips to Texas.

so you could cut 

Memphis, SMU or Houston, New Mexico, UNLV I suppose but I think you want those markets and to be at 16 like other major conferences.   16 also reduces travel for all your minor sports.  

I would leave out SMU, UH, UNM, and UNLV

at some point you have to look past "markets" and look to having a conference of winners and individual programs need to think less about 1 game every so often in some "market" and instead getting themselves on TV as often as possible with the current TV deal

from the standpoint of an individual team in a conference who cares if some other program in your conference has that "market" if you are not on TV in that market because that other team is on TV

as an individual program you want your conference to be strong, but the conference is not a social experiment or singing kumbaya around a campfire and smoking weed and giving each other herbal enemas......you want to kick the shit out of someone and then you want them to kick the shit out of teams IN OTHER CONFERENCES so your conference looks good 

and the issue with "thinking like a major conference" is you have to be a major conference to do so....when you are rebuilding with left overs and pull ups you have to think like you are all fighting for your lives not tossing a lifeline to every program just like you that wants to be better than you and leave you behind....and the first way to do that is LEAVE SOME BEHIND when you have the chance instead of dragging them along to smoke all the weed and eat all the doritos and then lay there on the couch sucking ass 

YOU WANT TRADITION? WELL......HERE 'TIS......The University of North Texas has football wins over: Texas Tech U......Rice U......Baylor U......TCU......SMU......Houston......Oklahoma State......San Diego St.......Kansas State......Arizona State.......Colorado State......Brigham Young......Oregon State......Florida......Indiana......Tennessee (a 6 & 5 SEC team & still our biggest win in school history)......Boise State......Louisville......Cincinatti (our last match-up with UC was a UNT bowl win), plus FOUR (4) NCAA FBS level Bowl Games (one while having a losing season record) in this millennium's 1'st decade while North Texas has had ONE NCAA Division 1 Top 20 ranking.

The North Texas Mean Green Village (located between 2 Texas interstates & which a recent TxDOT study said 200,000 vehicles drive by it daily) is a multi-acre olympic style village of athletc venues*dorms*computer study centers, etc, topped off with what GIL BRANDT: The Father of Modern NFL Scouting who described UNT's Apogee Stadium as a "Tah Mahal of a College Football Stadium" with Brandt adding... 'and I've seen every NCAA D1 FB stadium in the USA." All this along with UNT's fabulous 10,000 seat Super Pit--the Best & Largest on-campus college basketball venue in the D-FW Metroplex......AND THREE PONDS AND A BRIDGE!!!!!

 

This signature is the sole property of Someone and any use of this signature without express written consent of Someone is strictly forbiden by penalty of law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Someone said:

but thinking this through to an end game it does not work out

with USC gone from the conference to be independent is UCLA really going to still be excited to still hang out with Cal (and their $440 million in athletics debt and their $20 million annual budget deficit) and with Stanford and their $550 million dollar athletics endowment, but their historically terrible football and their relatively "meh" mens BB and their desire to play academics as much or more than sports

make no mistake about it I would love nothing more that to see Stanford, most of the rest of the PAC 12, many ACC teams, most of the Big 10, and the Big 12 leftovers tell the SEC and a few others "have at it in the pros bye" and go a different route......but as of now that is not happening and "the money" and those paying the money are all in on what will be crappy ass semi-pro college sports with a bunch of complete mush mouthed morons representing universities and a lot of them having "incidents" with all their new found money long before they can take advantage of a few college classes and get "in the league" (most will never sniff "the league" anyway which is it a bigger joke to be paying them much of anything besides the education they desperately need)

so if USC leaves is UCLA still going to just sit there?.....UW has $245 million in athletics debt, Oregon $201 million.....can they afford to be in a conference without USC and what that media deal will probably be like?.....can they afford to turn down what the Big 10 might offer them?

Colorado has $169 million in athletics department debt and their total budget in 2018-19 was $98.4 million, but $12 million of that was from the academic side and their total revenues were $95 million WITH that $12 million academic side subsidy.....so even with $12 million from the academic side they were still $3.5 million in the red that year.....that is not sustainable for them in the long term......hell they had their coach poached by MSU an upper middle Big 10 team that has massive issues of their own and the CU football coach did not bat an eye about saying "see ya"

UCLA has $90 million in athletics debt which is pretty low, but in 2018-19 they had total revenues of $108.5 million, but that has a $2.57 million academic side subsidy, BUT they had expenses of $127.3 million so they were in the red $19 million.....again well before any the covid

that is not sustainable for UCLA in the long haul and they are already not competing in football they have been ranked 3 times in the last 20 seasons to end the year and only one in the top 10 (#10) and the last time they were ranked was 2013 and 2014 so 7 and 8 seasons ago...prior to that it was 2005

is UCLA really going to stick around with programs that have massive debt, massive academic side subsidies, many with large annual budget deficits so they can hang out with Cal and Stanford while USC goes away (to anywhere including independent)......are UW and Oregon going to hang out for that.....is CU going to hang out for that if a conference called them and needed a good weed connect, some lift tickets, and an easy win and some free batteries if they catch them while having them thrown at them

in a way I hope you are right and the PAC 12, Big 10, ACC, and parts of the Big 12 stay together to play academics, but right now I do not see the money being there to do that and I think if some teams jump for the money others will have no choice but to follow and hope it blows up sooner than later and they are better off financially when it does

Historically terrible football?? Stanford has been to more Rose Bowls than every Pac-12 school except USC and Washington. UCLA hasn't been to a Rose Bowl this century, I don't think they're in any place to judge another Pac-12 school. 

 

Honestly, I think the California pac-12 schools problem is that they're now so selective that that the average Californian doesn't relate to Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC at all, and most of their students could care less about athletics. Not like in the other western states where the large flagship land-grants are still attended my much of the state. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Someone said:

 

I think there is a situation (not a great one for college football) where the Big 10 will feel like they have to do something

I am pretty sure the phones to the USC AD are on fire fight now and will not stop ringing and probably to their academic side as well asking what USC is going to do about all of this to keep up

the NIL is a huge factor in all of this....I can almost see a situation where the Big 10 is looking at USC being available (and then 3 others at least that will have to make a move) and the Big 10 is asking themselves what happens of we say no

what happens if the Big 10 says no and then the SEC says yes......or the ACC says yes

what happens if the PAC 12 is a shell of it's former self and The Rose Bowl game is still there with the Big 10 in half of it

they may well be looking at a situation of "we do not want to do this. but the worst that can happen from doing it is light years better than the worst from not doing it"

B1G won't say no to USC. The only issue will be the format and number teams and whether it will be a merger or a raid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bigd said:

Historically terrible football?? Stanford has been to more Rose Bowls than every Pac-12 school except USC and Washington. UCLA hasn't been to a Rose Bowl this century, I don't think they're in any place to judge another Pac-12 school. 

 

Stanford has been in the PAC since forever so going to a lot of Rose Bowls more than a number of other teams is not a major factor

and comparing them to UCLA is not exactly comparing them to anything meaningful.....UCLA is the worst underachiever in football besides Texas A&M when you look at resources and location

Stanford right now is on the best run in their history and it is a good one, but prior to it they were nothing in football and nowhere near a top team

YOU WANT TRADITION? WELL......HERE 'TIS......The University of North Texas has football wins over: Texas Tech U......Rice U......Baylor U......TCU......SMU......Houston......Oklahoma State......San Diego St.......Kansas State......Arizona State.......Colorado State......Brigham Young......Oregon State......Florida......Indiana......Tennessee (a 6 & 5 SEC team & still our biggest win in school history)......Boise State......Louisville......Cincinatti (our last match-up with UC was a UNT bowl win), plus FOUR (4) NCAA FBS level Bowl Games (one while having a losing season record) in this millennium's 1'st decade while North Texas has had ONE NCAA Division 1 Top 20 ranking.

The North Texas Mean Green Village (located between 2 Texas interstates & which a recent TxDOT study said 200,000 vehicles drive by it daily) is a multi-acre olympic style village of athletc venues*dorms*computer study centers, etc, topped off with what GIL BRANDT: The Father of Modern NFL Scouting who described UNT's Apogee Stadium as a "Tah Mahal of a College Football Stadium" with Brandt adding... 'and I've seen every NCAA D1 FB stadium in the USA." All this along with UNT's fabulous 10,000 seat Super Pit--the Best & Largest on-campus college basketball venue in the D-FW Metroplex......AND THREE PONDS AND A BRIDGE!!!!!

 

This signature is the sole property of Someone and any use of this signature without express written consent of Someone is strictly forbiden by penalty of law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gut says the Pac-12 ends up bringing in 4 schools and they do some media rights jiu jitsu where the new additions have to wait several years for full shares to ensure the current Pac-12 schools make money right off the bat. Why would the Big 12 schools agree to that? Because…

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

My gut says the Pac-12 ends up bringing in 4 schools and they do some media rights jiu jitsu where the new additions have to wait several years for full shares to ensure the current Pac-12 schools make money right off the bat. Why would the Big 12 schools agree to that? Because…

 

Been there, done that...

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RSF said:

Been there, done that...

Just my gut. Hard to be certain of anything with a new guy running the show for the Pac-12. If he really is about putting them in the best position to contend for playoff bids like some tweets are alluding to, then I don’t know what to expect. Because IMO the best four schools to add from a combination of on-field strength and media rights deal considerations are clearly (in no particular order) BYU, TCU, Houston, and OK State. If BYU is still a non-starter, sub in TX Tech. But will they actually set aside academic and cultural snobbery to make the right call to strengthen the conference? I’m not holding my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RebelAlliance said:

They're arrogant enough to try, but they'd fall flat on their face.  USC has no national following the way ND does.  They're a blueblood, so college football fans pay attention to them when they're relevant, which hasn't been often the last few decades, but nobody really gives a shit about them in the Northeast, Southeast or Great Lakes.  Hell, I'd argue that Michigan (and maybe tOSU or Texas) would have a much better chance of succeeding as an indy than USC. 

That’s why they won’t leave the Pac12

Fight On For Dear Old San Jose State;

Fight On For Victory!

We Are With You In Every Way.

No Matter What The Price May Be!

 

Onward For Sparta Noble And True,

Fight Hard In Everything You Do!

And So We'll Fight! (Rah!) Win! (Rah!)

March Onward Down the Field

And We Will Win The Day!

 

S...J...S...U,  S-J-S-U,  San Jose State!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bigd said:

Historically terrible football?? Stanford has been to more Rose Bowls than every Pac-12 school except USC and Washington. UCLA hasn't been to a Rose Bowl this century, I don't think they're in any place to judge another Pac-12 school. 

 

Honestly, I think the California pac-12 schools problem is that they're now so selective that that the average Californian doesn't relate to Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC at all, and most of their students could care less about athletics. Not like in the other western states where the large flagship land-grants are still attended my much of the state. 

 

Finally, someone with a decent take. 
 

The CA Pac12 schools have become out of reach for most students. So selective that the average public can’t relate to them much anymore. Their students are far more interested in academics than athletics. That’s why they are there, to excel at academics.  Doesn’t mean they don’t excel at athletics also, because they obviously do. It’s just there is a lot going on at these schools. 
 

My son never got a B in his life, was valedictorian of his class (there were a dozen kids valedictorian) and scored a 33 on the ACT. He was in the top 3% of students in the USA. He was accepted at every UC. He went to Cal.  His dorm mates (one from Columbus, OH and the other from Philadelphia) were both national merit scholars. That’s what it takes to get into Cal or UCLA. It’s crazy. 
 

Oregon, OSU, AZ, ASU, WSU, CO....are just normal places. Anyone can get into these schools.  They are more relatable to the general public in their state. 
 


 

 

Fight On For Dear Old San Jose State;

Fight On For Victory!

We Are With You In Every Way.

No Matter What The Price May Be!

 

Onward For Sparta Noble And True,

Fight Hard In Everything You Do!

And So We'll Fight! (Rah!) Win! (Rah!)

March Onward Down the Field

And We Will Win The Day!

 

S...J...S...U,  S-J-S-U,  San Jose State!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

100%. Excellent take here. And those students become alumni and get into the administration, donor circles, etc., and we see the same disinterest develop at higher levels too. Which makes the whole "the CA PAC teams are going to run off to the Big 10 or bring in a bunch of corn farmers" an absurd idea.

100% correct.  They will not chase money just to chase money.  It’s just not what they are about.  
 

(Plus they have billions in endowment)

Fight On For Dear Old San Jose State;

Fight On For Victory!

We Are With You In Every Way.

No Matter What The Price May Be!

 

Onward For Sparta Noble And True,

Fight Hard In Everything You Do!

And So We'll Fight! (Rah!) Win! (Rah!)

March Onward Down the Field

And We Will Win The Day!

 

S...J...S...U,  S-J-S-U,  San Jose State!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joe from WY said:

100%. Excellent take here. And those students become alumni and get into the administration, donor circles, etc., and we see the same disinterest develop at higher levels too. Which makes the whole "the CA PAC teams are going to run off to the Big 10 or bring in a bunch of corn farmers" an absurd idea.

Except those schools all collaborate a great deal with those "corn farmers" already though direct research partnerships, grant-sharing, AAU membership or being a member of one of the National Academies.  The faculty and administration do not view Big 10 schools as rubes.  Does Stanford view them all (OK, any of them) as equals?  No, but their administrators don't suffer from binary thinking and can judge where along the academic quality spectrum, those schools lie.  And even the most pretentious donors can be educated about the situation, not to mention how much help those corn farmers might be in helping their school pay down its athletic debt.

You seem quite obsessed with tearing down the B10 schools through comically inaccurate stereotypes.  Did you per chance not get accepted to one or more of them somewhere down the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Old_Sparty1857 said:

Finally, someone with a decent take. 
 

The CA Pac12 schools have become out of reach for most students. So selective that the average public can’t relate to them much anymore. Their students are far more interested in academics than athletics. That’s why they are there, to excel at academics.  Doesn’t mean they don’t excel at athletics also, because they obviously do. It’s just there is a lot going on at these schools. 
 

My son never got a B in his life, was valedictorian of his class (there were a dozen kids valedictorian) and scored a 33 on the ACT. He was in the top 3% of students in the USA. He was accepted at every UC. He went to Cal.  His dorm mates (one from Columbus, OH and the other from Philadelphia) were both national merit scholars. That’s what it takes to get into Cal or UCLA. It’s crazy. 
 

Oregon, OSU, AZ, ASU, WSU, CO....are just normal places. Anyone can get into these schools.  They are more relatable to the general public in their state. 
 


 

 

 

 

 

YOU WANT TRADITION? WELL......HERE 'TIS......The University of North Texas has football wins over: Texas Tech U......Rice U......Baylor U......TCU......SMU......Houston......Oklahoma State......San Diego St.......Kansas State......Arizona State.......Colorado State......Brigham Young......Oregon State......Florida......Indiana......Tennessee (a 6 & 5 SEC team & still our biggest win in school history)......Boise State......Louisville......Cincinatti (our last match-up with UC was a UNT bowl win), plus FOUR (4) NCAA FBS level Bowl Games (one while having a losing season record) in this millennium's 1'st decade while North Texas has had ONE NCAA Division 1 Top 20 ranking.

The North Texas Mean Green Village (located between 2 Texas interstates & which a recent TxDOT study said 200,000 vehicles drive by it daily) is a multi-acre olympic style village of athletc venues*dorms*computer study centers, etc, topped off with what GIL BRANDT: The Father of Modern NFL Scouting who described UNT's Apogee Stadium as a "Tah Mahal of a College Football Stadium" with Brandt adding... 'and I've seen every NCAA D1 FB stadium in the USA." All this along with UNT's fabulous 10,000 seat Super Pit--the Best & Largest on-campus college basketball venue in the D-FW Metroplex......AND THREE PONDS AND A BRIDGE!!!!!

 

This signature is the sole property of Someone and any use of this signature without express written consent of Someone is strictly forbiden by penalty of law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Old_Sparty1857 said:

Finally, someone with a decent take. 
 

The CA Pac12 schools have become out of reach for most students. So selective that the average public can’t relate to them much anymore. Their students are far more interested in academics than athletics. That’s why they are there, to excel at academics.  Doesn’t mean they don’t excel at athletics also, because they obviously do. It’s just there is a lot going on at these schools. 
 

My son never got a B in his life, was valedictorian of his class (there were a dozen kids valedictorian) and scored a 33 on the ACT. He was in the top 3% of students in the USA. He was accepted at every UC. He went to Cal.  His dorm mates (one from Columbus, OH and the other from Philadelphia) were both national merit scholars. That’s what it takes to get into Cal or UCLA. It’s crazy. 
 

Oregon, OSU, AZ, ASU, WSU, CO....are just normal places. Anyone can get into these schools.  They are more relatable to the general public in their state. 
 


 

 

While I definitely think there are some cultural issues at play, I don't think it's the selectivity of Cal and UCLA solely.  Cal is really no more selective than Michigan (middle 50% SAT range Cal: 1330-1530/Michigan: 1340-1530).  UCLA is slightly more selective than the next tier of B10 schools (UCLA: 1300-1530/Wiscsonsin 1300-1480/Minnesota 1260-1480/Ohio State 1250-1460/Illinois 1210-1470)  For comparison's sake, at UNLV it's 1030-1250 and at UNR 1070-1290.

If kids at UCLA and Berkeley don't care about athletics while kids at Michigan and the next four B1G schools do, I don't see SAT scores and selectivity being the causality.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, RebelAlliance said:

While I definitely think there are some cultural issues at play, I don't think it's the selectivity of Cal and UCLA solely.  Cal is really no more selective than Michigan (middle 50% SAT range Cal: 1330-1530/Michigan: 1340-1530).  UCLA is slightly more selective than the next tier of B10 schools (UCLA: 1300-1530/Wiscsonsin 1300-1480/Minnesota 1260-1480/Ohio State 1250-1460/Illinois 1210-1470)  For comparison's sake, at UNLV it's 1030-1250 and at UNR 1070-1290.

If kids at UCLA and Berkeley don't care about athletics while kids at Michigan and the next four B1G schools do, I don't see SAT scores and selectivity being the causality.  

 

You are off by a good margin.  I recently sat through three hours with the college counselor we use for my kid going through a list of colleges across the country and what it takes to get admitted.

UCLA isn't slightly more selective than the second tier of the big 10.  Not even remotely close.  UC's and CSU's stopped taking SAT/ACT test scores last year and won't going forward.  It's pretty much all based on GPA.  You need a 4.4+ to have a shot at getting accepted into UCLA.  Same at Cal.  You can easily get into every Big 10 school, save for Northwestern, with a 4.0 and most with even less.  Hell, unless you live in the service area, you can't get into SDSU without a 4.0 or higher.

Anecdotal example, but a girl I know last year got into Princeton, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, and U of Chicago, but was wait-listed at UCSD and rejected from UCLA and Cal.  She ended up going to UCSD.

The four CA Pac schools are more difficult to get into than any four schools in any FBS conference by a mile.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Fowl said:

 

You are off by a good margin.  I recently sat through three hours with the college counselor we use for my kid going through a list of colleges across the country and what it takes to get admitted.

UCLA isn't slightly more selective than the second tier of the big 10.  Not even remotely close.  UC's and CSU's stopped taking SAT/ACT test scores last year and won't going forward.  It's pretty much all based on GPA.  You need a 4.4+ to have a shot at getting accepted into UCLA.  Same at Cal.  You can easily get into every Big 10 school, save for Northwestern, with a 4.0 and most with even less.  Hell, unless you live in the service area, you can't get into SDSU without a 4.0 or higher.

Anecdotal example, but a girl I know last year got into Princeton, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, and U of Chicago, but was wait-listed at UCSD and rejected from UCLA and Cal.  She ended up going to UCSD.

The four CA Pac schools are more difficult to get into than any four schools in any FBS conference by a mile.  

Here's their own Common Data Set.  Their own numbers.  For ease and quickness, I used google's numbers.  The most recent UCLA common data set says 1290-1510.  FWIW, the median SAT score at Chicago is 1505.  If you think it's harder to get into UCLA than Princeton or Chicago (5% acceptance rates), I don't know what to say.  A case study of 1 doesn't prove shit.  As for GPA, I'm not sure it tells much anymore.  In an era of rampant grade inflation and parents showing up with lawyers to student-parent meetings doesn't mean a lot to me.  Class rank matters though, and the Master Plan admission requirements definitely boost Cal and UCLA's profile. 

OTOH, Michigan is notorious for being a safety school for rich kids from the Northeast and Chicago who don't get into Princeton or Chicago.  So they might have a 4.4 and 1460 SAT, but they might not rank in the top 10 percent of the highly competitive high schools they attended.  

As for SDSU, your university's own numbers say that 46% of the freshman class had lower than a 3.75, and 32% didn't graduate in the top quarter of their high school class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...