University of Texas newspaper on the benefits of the Big Ten
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/top-stories/benefits-of-the-big-ten-1.2…
This contains a few interesting opinions, apparently held by UT students... My personal favorite: "the notion of an athletic conference as a geographically determined entity is antiquated."
All in all, the author of this article seems to be in favor of a move to the Big Ten. Makes you wonder how many like him are out there.
EDIT: The Daily Texan is definitely not the Michigan Daily. It's still got Big Ten-esque academics though, right? Right.
Texas is considered one of the top public institutions in the country, in the same vein of Michigan, Virginia, Cal, and North Carolina. The Michigan Daily is a uniquely well made newspaper for a school without a journalism program. That the Daily Texan doesn't stack up to the Michigan Daily shouldn't cause worry about their other academic accomplishments.
Other than geography (which can be overcome on a new fangled aeroplane), Texas is perfect. Excellent undergraduate and graduate academics. Excellent athletics. Great campus/college town. Public university. Ugh, to go from possible Texas to possible Rutgers is like the reveal in the Crying Game.
I'd say it might actually be even worse. I mean, Rutgers? Really??? I'd imagine if they took a poll in Big Ten states the % supporting such a move would be, at most, 5%. I know not everyone was happy with PSU but I'm sure it was more than 5%!
If we're going after NE teams why not get UConn??? They just joined Div I in football but they've been easily as successful as Rutgers and they awesome basketball (of course none of the women would ever have a chance but it'd still be a huge asset).
I think 5% is very generous. I can't imagine support would even be 2 or 3%. As for UConn...while they do bring a solid bball tradition, they are a weak fit as well. To me, you need more than 3 years in DI football to have a "program". Cincinnati (another please-no school) has more history than UConn in football.
I don't want any Big East school but would settle for Pitt or Syracuse if we couldn't wrangle a Big 12 team. No one else should be in the conversation.
I think they are a weak fit as well, I was just saying that if it was UConn or Rutgers I'd go w/ UConn without even a second thought. Best of the worst and all that.
Of course that Home and Home w/ UConn wouldn't look like such BS ;)
You must have led an interesting life...
Rutgers isn't perfect, but I'd be okay with them. Even with their crappy sports history, I think they bring more to the table than Missouri. Breaking into the New York market would be nice.
Since we're talking about adding a team to a sports conference, it seems that adding a team with what you admit to be a "crappy sports history" is a terrible idea. Neither you nor I own a television network, so breaking into the New York market means nothing to the fan.
The fact that Rutgers's sports history is crappy doesn't mean its future will be. For many years they neglected their sports programs, but they've spent quite a bit of money lately in a bid to upgrade their football program. As the flagship school in a state of 8.5 million, they have a decent amount of local talent to draw from. It's just a matter of convincing it to stay home.
That's sweet for Rutgers, but why is that a reason to target Rutgers instead of almost any team in the Big 12 or nearly any other team in the Big East?
No offense, but every time someone mentions a college team bringing the NY sports market, a Staten Islander orders a Jager bomb and I try to stop myself from facepalming too hard.
To those who are not from New York:
New York and New Jersey have no interest in college sports unless they went there or are bandwagonning, and even then not much. Going to high school in New York in 2006, people gave me crap for being a Michigan fan because they liked OSU that year. By the next year, they were all over Florida. My personal experience makes me very skeptical of any alleged market advantage brought by Rutgers or Syracuse.
If Rutgers can establish momentum as a football program (which they may be in the process of doing), I think you'll see a lot of people in New Jersey (not just RU alums) rally behind them. (New York proper may be a little different.) Part of the reason why few pay attention to college sports there is because they've never had a local team to cheer for. If Rutgers is competitive - and hosting Michigan, PSU and OSU on a regular basis - I think you'll see the profile of college sports go up quite a bit in NJ.
I'm not sure, mainly because the casual NJ football fan's Sunday is more than likely consumed by the Jets or Giants and the focus in the tristate area will always be pro sports simply because there's so many of them. For example, there's still baseball going into October, not as big a concern for Mets fans recently, but HUGE for Yanks fans if they're still in it.
So Rutgers needs UofM, PSU and OSU to visit in order to raise its profile? Who cares? It's not the Big Ten's job to do that. I'm beating a dead horse here, but there are plenty of mediocre to poor programs that we could bring into the conference. That being said, why bother? Any expansion should increase the profile of the conference; not just the new addition.
Because Rutgers has a high ceiling. If you can get a powerful program going in New Jersey, it could be a major asset to the conference, in a way that I don't think Missouri or the other options would.
In the Big East and Big 12 alone, there are about 15 better choices than Rutgers. A "high ceiling"...c'mon. The Lions have a high ceiling too. Just because a program isn't good doesn't mean they will achieve greatness.
...lived in NY state for the past 8 years I concur 100%. No one cares about Rutgers.
No one cares about Syracuse either, unless the Bball team is doing well, then it's rather amusing watch everyone breaking their ankles trying to leap aboard the bandwagon.
Support the idea. They know what the Big Ten brings to the table (better academics and sh!t loads of money as well as a century of history and tradition) and are ok w/ traveling. The only hangup, as the author pointed out, is the Texas Legislature. The way to get around that, I believe, is to bring OU and A&M with them to make a 14 team conference w/ 1 division being UT, OU, A&M, Iowa, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois and the other being Minn, UW, OSU, MSU, NW, PSU, and UM. The 4 teams tied w/ OU/UT/A&M are the 4 closest to DFW.
That would leave 2 or 3 inter-divisional matchups a year and the regular chunk of non-conference games. That would also allow for some not too far travel for the 2 rivalry games for the folks down south.
Yeah, I know, OU academics are, eh but seriously, even splitting the pie 3 more ways I'd bet we'd pull in more cash.
Is anyone worried about baseball? Or golf. Essentially sports that the warmer climate has a huge advantage? Just curious.
I haven't heard any good ideas to address it and it would definitely be a huge issue. Maybe they can go independent there.
I go to Rice, they suck at everything except baseball basically because they're in Houston and guys like Lance Berkman fall into their lap.
Southern states have an advantage in football, too, but adding the Texas schools would really help recruiting in the South. So, even though TX would be a threat to win a lot of conference championships, it would be worth it to have them.
Besides, if you want to be the best, you've got to beat the best.
Brining OU wouldnot change the Texas Legislature's mind, brining UT, A&M and TT would be enough
The DFW metroplex cares about OU and since we're ignoring Houston here the representatives from DFW care much more about OU than they do about TT.
Hell, I'd be ok w/ them bringing TCU - that means I could see Big Ten games in my own back yard! :) (seriously tho that stadium is TINY)
Also, yeah, baseball would be awesome and having the likes of those schools on our schedule would give us a shot at making the tourney as an at-large. As for golf, A&M won the NC last year when we finished 3rd. If anything it would make for fewer snow outs since we'd at least have a few games down in Texas.
When the Big 12 was formed, Baylor was a big part of the issue. It turns out that at # of Texas Legislators are Baylor alums and they used their clout to force the Big 12 to take Baylor. The other ones were sort of a no-brainer.
I say we take UT and A&M, but lets take Missouri instead of Texas Tech.
"UT is often compared to the “pretty girl at the dance,” free to pick from any potential suitors. The Big Ten is a particularly alluring partner."
This marks the first time a "Yankee" has been openly considered "alluring" south of the Mason-Dixon Line since a particularly attractive teacher moved to Galveston in 1936.
Has BON or Barking Carnival published their take yet on Texas moving?
Edit: They have and Peter discredits the "frankthetank" blog. http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/2/22/1321545/texas-to-the-big-10-…
OU is far out of academic qualification for the big ten. It's not just below the worst school, like Missouri or Nebraska, but it's not even in the same league as the worst school.
And I absolutely abhor the notion of a 14 team conference. You play 2/7 teams from the other division each year. That's the equivalent of the Big Ten and MAC right now pretty much. As much as I would like Texas, I don't want Texas if it would mean a 14 team conference. Tertiary "rivalries" where one team doesn't play the other team for two years are bad enough as is.
you're looking at missing a school for two years max. Probably missing a school 3 years max with 8 conference games.
With a 14-team conference and a nine-game schedule, you'd be playing only three of the seven teams in the other division. Conference schedules would be extremely imbalanced. With an eight-game schedule you're playing two of seven. At that point it can hardly be considered a single conference.
http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=university+of+te…
(Sorry, don't know how to paste a picture) this argument is conclusive to me.
ShockFX posted something here: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/basic-html-posting
Here's how it works:
The Daily Texan has garnered numerous awards for college journalism. To imply that it is somehow 'below' the Michigan paper is absurd.
Just the sort of yankee elitism one might expect, or perhaps being snowed-in for months on in can drive one to insanity. No worries though, hopefully by the time Texas joins the Big 10 (12?), Michigan will be competitive again.
And a new rivalry is born...?
Get one.