Jump to content
Bruininthebay

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

Recommended Posts

8 hours 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.

you make @smltwnrckr look concise bro

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joe from WY said:

No. Because like the Pac-12 elitists, I've never had any interest in associating with corn people.

Tell me, aggrieved rube, from your view in Green Acres, do you think the rain will hurt the rhubarb?

 

this is a wild ass take joe. them corn states are boring but their universities are top rate. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RebelAlliance said:

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.

Dude what part of acceptance rate do you not get?  Not only do California’s have to compete in state with the highest state population but two types of degrees are considered elite in China: 1) an Ivy League degree 2) a UC degree.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

Lucky for us, BYU has no say in any decision.  If the Big 12 passes you by and goes east..... you best pray that Fresno lets you in the MWC. 

taylor swift lyric video GIF by Vevo

You'll always have that time when you almost beat USC

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Aztec1984 said:

I was accepted into UCLA. Good to be an athlete I suppose. 

Good to be born in the 1980 class.  Cal accepted 50% of its students then.  It is very different now.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

taylor swift lyric video GIF by Vevo

You'll always have that time when you almost beat USC.

not worried about BYU.  We beat you in 2017 and own the all time record against you.  If the Big 12 tells you to F-off, I would be more than happy if we can return the favor to the nut punchers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Someone Else said:

I read over the information you linked and SDSU's GPA information listed is using a 4.0 scale... hard to be above 4.00 when that is done. 

Extra credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Selectivity by acceptance rate 

Stanford: 4%

USC: 11% 

UCLA: 12%

Cal: 16%
 

 

Northwestern: 9%

Michigan: 23%

Maryland: 44%

Wisconsin: 54%

 

California Schools with lower acceptance rates than Wisconsin:

Santa Clara

San Diego State

Lower than Maryland:

UC Davis 

Pepperdine

Occidental

UC Irvine

UC Santa Barbara

Cal Poly

Cal Institute of the Arts

UCSD

Scripps 

Lower than Michigan

Pitzer

UCLA

Berkeley

Southern California 

Harvey Mudd

Claremont McKenna

Lower than Northwestern 

Pomona College

Stanford

MIT

 

Really only Northwestern would be considered elite in CA.

 

18 minutes ago, Someone Else said:

I read over the information you linked and SDSU's GPA information listed is using a 4.0 scale... hard to be above 4.00 when that is done.  

I actually live in CA and while Fowl might be exaggerating a bit... getting into UCLA, Cal, most UCs is pretty tough and it's pretty difficult to get into SDSU too (not as difficult as UC schools).  It's because of the number of applicants.  All of those CA schools can be more selective because so many apply.

 

Acceptance rate is just one metric, but it's not the be all.  Of course almost every kid who's UC qualified will swing for the fences and take a shot at Cal or UCLA.  That allows them to reject a metric +++++ ton of kids who end up at Davis or Irvine or even Merced.

What really matters is the quality of the freshman class that enrolls that Fall, and as I've shown, there is no difference between that freshman class at Berkeley and the one at Michigan, and there's only a slight difference between the freshman class that enrolls at UCLA and those that show up at Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio State, Illinois and Maryland.

And if you think there's no difference between the freshman class that shows up at UCLA and the ones that show up at Princeton, Chicago or MIT, then that's a level of stupid that I can't help you with. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

not worried about BYU.  We beat you in 2017 and own the all time record against you.  If the Big 12 tells you to F-off, I would be more than happy if we can return the favor to the nut punchers. 

Such mean, tough talk. You know what's going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Selectivity by acceptance rate 

Stanford: 4%

USC: 11% 

UCLA: 12%

Cal: 16%
 

 

Northwestern: 9%

Michigan: 23%

Maryland: 44%

Wisconsin: 54%

 

California Schools with lower acceptance rates than Wisconsin:

Santa Clara

San Diego State

Lower than Maryland:

UC Davis 

Pepperdine

Occidental

UC Irvine

UC Santa Barbara

Cal Poly

Cal Institute of the Arts

UCSD

Scripps 

Lower than Michigan

Pitzer

UCLA

Berkeley

Southern California 

Harvey Mudd

Claremont McKenna

Lower than Northwestern 

Pomona College

Stanford

MIT

 

Really only Northwestern would be considered elite in CA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

 


 

I wasn't arguing against California schools, no doubt that California has many elite schools and the UCs are top-tier in every way. I was talking more about the other western schools compared to Big Ten schools. 

Though to counter your point, there are a lot of other important metrics to look at besides simple acceptance rates. And even with acceptance rates you have to look at the quality of the applicants. I believe the San Diego State and Long Beach State are two of the most applied to schools in the nation, that doesn't make them better than Harvard.

SDSU has a lower rate than Wisconsin, but their average incoming SAT is 1390 compared to SDSUs 1225. The Big Ten schools also have top-tier graduate programs and endowments (similar to the UCs). 

 

Ultimately, my point was that I obviously agree that Stanford, Berkeley, USC, and UCLA love smelling their own farts. But despite flyover stereotypes they're well aware that in the world of academia trading Oregon, Arizona, Utah, Washington State, etc for Michigan, Ohio State, Northwestern, Rutgers, Penn State, etc is definitely moving up in the world. 

 

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RebelAlliance said:

Acceptance rate is just one metric, but it's not the be all.  Of course almost every kid who's UC qualified will swing for the fences and take a shot at Cal or UCLA.  That allows them to reject a metric +++++ ton of kids who end up at Davis or Irvine or even Merced.

What really matters is the quality of the freshman class that enrolls that Fall, and as I've shown, there is no difference between that freshman class at Berkeley and the one at Michigan, and there's only a slight difference between the freshman class that enrolls at UCLA and those that show up at Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio State, Illinois and Maryland.

And if you think there's no difference between the freshman class that shows up at UCLA and the ones that show up at Princeton, Chicago or MIT, then that's a level of stupid that I can't help you with. 

Princeton, Chicago and MIT aren’t in the Big 10 playing football.  So how is that relevant to your point?    And yes those kids end up more likely at TCU, Colorado or Oregon but again how is that relevant to the average Californian being disconnected from the CA PAC-12 schools? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

Such mean, tough talk. You know what's going to happen.

Actually I don’t.  Would be happy to hear you predict the future.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Convince you that you’re wrong? You know what happens when you wrestle a pig…?

You’re the one making assertions and presumptions about what others think, how about you sell us your thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

Selectivity by acceptance rate 

Stanford: 4%

USC: 11% 

UCLA: 12%

Cal: 16%
 

 

Northwestern: 9%

Michigan: 23%

Maryland: 44%

Wisconsin: 54%

 

California Schools with lower acceptance rates than Wisconsin:

Santa Clara

San Diego State

Lower than Maryland:

UC Davis 

Pepperdine

Occidental

UC Irvine

UC Santa Barbara

Cal Poly

Cal Institute of the Arts

UCSD

Scripps 

Lower than Michigan

Pitzer

UCLA

Berkeley

Southern California 

Harvey Mudd

Claremont McKenna

Lower than Northwestern 

Pomona College

Stanford

MIT

 

Really only Northwestern would be considered elite in CA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

 


 

meh. most of the big 10's graduate programs blow the doors off of anyone in cali not named UCLA or Cal. That includes schools you wouldn't think of like Illinois. That's a lot better metric for academic rigor than undergrad acceptance rate imo. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, happycamper said:

meh. most of the big 10's graduate programs blow the doors off of anyone in cali not named UCLA or Cal. That includes schools you wouldn't think of like Illinois. That's a lot better metric for academic rigor than undergrad acceptance rate imo. 

If the question is relatability to the general population the in-State acceptance rate as an undergrad is the most appropriate measure.  BTW you really left Stanford off your list??  USC maybe.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

If the question is relatability to the general population the in-State acceptance rate as an undergrad is the most appropriate measure.  BTW you really left Stanford off your list??  USC maybe.  

Illinois is rated higher than Stanford in civil engineering. :banhammer:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading alot of talk about academics.....CFB is about to be NOT academics. It's about dollars yo. Get on the money or read books. Sad but true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

Sure shall we compare every other graduate school😁

Sure. Between Purdue, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan, NW, Iowa?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...