Take OU to get TX?

Submitted by ciszew on June 13th, 2010 at 5:45 PM

A Texas fan on the Northwestern board wrote a pretty great piece about the current U of Texas perspective in expansion:


Anyway he basically states (and this is pure theory so take it with a grain of salt) that Texas would join the Big Ten if Oklahoma was in a package deal with them.
Some of the Northwestern peeps where saying no, b/c of OU's lack of academic credentials.  
I personally would say yes, bring in OU even if they are not up to par with some of the other institutions in our conference.  The benefits out weigh the risks.
What does the Mgoblog community think?  



June 13th, 2010 at 6:05 PM ^

I saw that the Big 12 wishes to stay at 10 teams and play a fuull round-robin, assuming no attrition, per an orangebloods article. If the PAC-11 can snap up Utah that would put four BCS conferences at 12 teams, one at 10, and one at 8, which is almost exactly the same as before. I like this scenario also, it gets us to 12 teams without some form of a major armaggedon.

Blue Durham

June 13th, 2010 at 8:18 PM ^

I don't want to see the destruction of a conference, and all of the problems it would cause the schools left out in the cold.

I too am not very convinced on the 16-team mega-conferences.  It ultimately ends up being two 8-team conferences that are loosely affiliated by a relatively few games between the two divisions and then a championship game.  About the same as the old Pac Ten-Big Ten affiliation.

david from wyoming

June 13th, 2010 at 5:57 PM ^

It would be a tough call. With Nebraska, Texas and OU we would have the entire great plains TV market but it would be a high price since OU has very few good academic departments (outside of atmospheric science, where they are one of the best in the world...).

Zone Left

June 13th, 2010 at 6:04 PM ^

Personally, its all about money, and being associated with Oklahoma in athletics doesn't hurt any school's academics.  If CIC membership is part of the deal, then the Big Ten/CIC will probably say no simply because the research money from the CIC dwarfs athletic department money.

I vote yes.


June 13th, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^

I don't see the Big Ten taking OU. Academics are a big part of the Big Ten and I don't see them bending on that. The old saying is "never say never", but I think its pretty much there. The only reason the Big Ten hurried on Nebraska, was because of the Pac-10. If the Pac-10 doesn't start pressing, the Big Ten takes its time, although I believe Nebraska would've ended up here regardless. I bet one of the reasons Nebraska left the Big 12 was because of its academics. We all know the biggest reason was the almighty dollar.


June 13th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^

I'd say no. Oklahoma is perfectly suited to the SEC, what with the Switzer days of Bosworth's needle hanging out of his ass, and other issues he had, plus the basketball program having their repeated issues. It's almost like they like probation. Vanderbilt sticks out in that conference like Santa Claus in a whorehouse.

Mr. Robot

June 13th, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^

We don't need any school THAT badly. OU's academics are a far cry from the rest of the Big Ten, CIC or no CIC.

Also, I can't STAND Oklahoma. Didn't like the state when I went through it, never really liked their football team, and if OU ever came to the Big House and brought their band, I would have to go Postal. Their fight song straight up sucks, and they NEVER STOP PLAYING IT. At least USC's is actually pretty good when its not being beaten to death by their band.

If Texas is coming with baggage, Texas A&M should be it. Strong tradition, lots of research, and a decent pickup all by itself. I'd rather we stuck at 12 anyway, but if we don't, please no OU.


June 13th, 2010 at 6:46 PM ^

The CIC as an organization doesn't give research funding to member universities; its role is to further academic excellence and efficiency among member institutions through a variety collaborative programs. Some of them are financial in nature, such as the group purchasing program, but member institutions are responsible for their own research funding. From the CIC website:

"CIC universities engage in $6 billion in funded research each year ($3.2 billion from federal sources). Leaders from our member universities are exploring ways to promote greater strategic engagement across the spectrum of the research enterprise to leverage and build upon the significant resources and research facilities."


Certainly there are financial benefits from CIC membership, but those are indirectly the result of the sharing and collaboration.


June 13th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^

The Big Ten's academic integrity is not worth giving up for Texas and missing out on Texas is not the end of the world anyway.


June 13th, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^

Very tough call. OU clearly does not work academically, but it is an elite fball school with plenty of other great sports. And if B10 needed to take them to get TX, I would do it. Look, every conference and team has their "perfect world", but unless someone is willing to compromise it is hard to make most of the best deals happen. ND is not AAU, but B10 will let them in. That is a compromise. Frankly, RU and MO would be compromises in that they are not all that exciting from a fball standpoint. Just like you take A&M to get TX. Would we take A&M alone? No way. Too much travel and questionable fit culturally. But we would take them to get TX. And I think that is the limit. We do not take TTU or Baylor and we do not take Okie St.

Note: FWIW Mad Dog Radio (Siruis) is reporting that A&M has turned down the SEC.

Double Nickel BG

June 13th, 2010 at 7:09 PM ^

 Texas A&M would be a decent school to pickup w/o Texas. Its just a benifit that if we get A&M, we also probably get Texas.

I also disagree about MO football not being that exciting. Since they got Pinkel, their offense has been pretty fun to watch and have been a pretty good football team. They should be pretty decent in the future with Gabbert at QB.

Personally, I wouldn't take Oklahoma to get Texas.


June 13th, 2010 at 6:51 PM ^

While it's not an ironclad requirement to join the Big Ten, the only school mentioned for expansion that is not an AAU member is Notre Dame, and they're ranked higher by the USNWR than any other Big Ten school besides Northwestern. I guess in this crazy time anything is possible, but I think OU is very unlikely to be invited by the B10.


June 13th, 2010 at 7:05 PM ^

I dont think OU needs to be a package deal with Texas, if the UT board of regents decides that the academic and revenue gains are too great to pass up theyll come. They've been in a different conference from OU before they can do it again.


June 13th, 2010 at 7:08 PM ^

To be fair, taking OU would mean OkSt. would also have to come along, since there is no way they would allow the rivalry to become a OOC matchup.  So now you have two lower-ranked schools joining the conference, and I don't think Texas is quite worth that headache just in terms of coordination and logistics.  

 As for academics, I think the concerns are a bit overblown - many of these rankings are tied to perception (which would be helped by joining the academically-strong Big 10) as well as research metrics that would undoubtedly be helped by the influx of opportunities from the other institutions in the conference.  They would still be on the outside looking in with regards to academics when compared to the NWs, UW's, IU's and UM's of the conference, but I don't foresee the academic integrity of the conference taking a massive hit.  


June 13th, 2010 at 7:37 PM ^

I'm with you. while I think Texas is a decent fit academically, and they are obviously a power add, I think the distance is an issue, and I think they'd have a competitive advantage in "warm season" sports like baseball, golf, etc. Then there is the competitive recruiting advantage.

I'm not a chicken mind you. I am just wary of the potential of adding a high maintenance member.


June 13th, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^

I kind of agree.  While the OP in the Northwestern post had some good points, he somewhat overrates UT's academic profile (the paper he linked to is quite interesting, even though schools like UT fall into a special status for its system) and underplays the Big 10's focus on non-revenue sports like baseball and swimming/diving (especially since UM has one of the best swimming programs in college today, and schools like OSU and Minny are very competitive).  Adding Texas would be a huge feather in the Big 10's cap, but the biggest effect would be felt on the revenue sports side (and even then, mostly in football).  I'm fine with Nebraska for now, and if UT/ND-type is open to joining and it makes sense, then by all means do it.  But I don't think it is necessary to beg UT to join.


June 13th, 2010 at 7:36 PM ^

Unless you're ND, you better be a member of the AAU if you want much of a chance to join the Big Ten.

From May 20:


2. AAU membership matters for the most part

Delany made it clear Tuesday that membership in the Association of American Universities remains an important criteria for most expansion candidates. All 11 current Big Ten schools are AAU members.

"AAU membership is an important part of who we are," he said.

Of course, the Big Ten's last expansion target, Notre Dame, isn't an AAU member, and it likely wouldn't preclude the league from pursuing the Fighting Irish again.

"The academics and the traditions and the values of those schools have to match the values of the Big Ten," Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez said. "[AAU membership] is very important."

When asked if AAU membership is part of the identity of Big Ten schools, Alvarez replied, smiling, "It is right now."


June 13th, 2010 at 8:27 PM ^

than Texas for the B10. Add in Missouri to make it 14 and call it a wrap. If you have to go to 16, then add Pitt and Syracuse.

But I'm comfortable staying with Nebraska and a Big Ten/Twelve, too.