Ranking teams by value to their conference...

[SunCoastSooner]

Assinine statement. If Texas was only cared about by Texans, then why do we lead the nation in merchandise sales? Texas played for a MNC in 77 and had a Heisman trophy winner. We also had a chance in 83 as well. But, hey, we lost. That doesn't mean that the games were any less important than OU and Nebraska. The schools of the Big 8 needed Texas and Texas needed them to create a regional super conference. It worked and the conference is doing great. OU fan just needs to get over the fact that they are not the most revelant team in the conference.

the merchandise statement proves my point. in the now.

played for "twice". OU, NU and CU won how many NC's since 1970 in the Big 8 vs. the SWC? at least 6. none for the SWC. that seems pretty convincing to me. 6-0.

it's got nothing to do with you projecting the typical UT motive on everyone else: "relevance". it has more to do with the SWC sucking, which i think has been established with facts.

So what is revelant is that Texas is #1 and OU is #2 when it comes to "relevance" within the Big XII and the fact is you cannot stand it. So the sour grapes are spilled and we have to hear your same tired responses about how the SWC sucked and the Big 8 didn't want or need Texas. Thanks for the reset.

Earlier someone said, "people think of Texas when they think of the Big 12." As a neutral observer, I don't agree. I'd give that distinction to the Sooners.

[SunCoastSooner]

Sun Coast,

Come on man, Texas didn't ruin the SWC, nor are they trying to ruin the Big 12. In fact when I was in school RICE was quietly talking about getting out of the SWC. We correctly realized that we were never going to be able to compete on an even level with Texas or A&M. RICE wanted out for quite some time, but the reduced travel costs of a conference within the state kept us in place.

Have not heard about Rice. But Rice could have been replaced with someone like UTEP. One school leaving would not have been the death knall to the conference.

I do agree though that Texas and OU agree on most things when it comes to the Big 12. These two together along with A&M lead the conference. I have no reason to doubt your claim that Neb didn't want Texas in the conference, but how come Texas got everything they wanted in the formation of the conference? Texas wanted nothing to do with Prop 48 athletes. The compromise was reached and the Big 12 is now as we know it. Texas and OU wanted a rotation of conf title games and BB touney based on North v South. It happened. If Texas had pissed everyone off as badly as you say, then why did they get everything they wanted?

Because just as I listed (and it appears from you statement you agree) of the three most influential schools in the paradigm two were united against one (OU/UT vs. NU) the two won out mainly by bullying the south division and Kansas schools into submission. Kansas and Kansas State need the state of Oklahoma in a number of sports such as baseball and and basketball to be competitive and the saddest part for them is they realize it. Comparing Oklahoma athletics to Kansas is about like comparing Oklahoma to Texas high school wise... they aren't comparable. Oklahoma doesn't regrett the stance they took just the power we have granted Texass in doing so.

OU and Texas rule the Big 12 and as such I would rate them both as 1. Everyone else is behind them. And hell if Nebraska and Missou want to go, let them. Then bring in TCU not because of their programs although they are getting better, but because they bring in the Dallas area market. And if you really want to bring in barganing power, bring in Cougar High just for the Houston TV market.

Now that is an argument I can accept but Harv and rumple telling us that we are just subservant to the beast that is Texass I will not. This thread asked for personal opinion and I gave it.

The Dallas Market is pretty solid with the OU and UT fan bases (two of the three largest in the community) we don't need TCU to bring it in. I'd rather court Arkansas with some combonation of Memphis/Colorado State/Utah. Either that or just bail on it before the NOrth schools do and high tail it to the SEC where I think everyone realizes we would be welcomed with open arms for the most part.

[SunCoastSooner]

Rack this thread, especially the Big XII honks. I'm rather amused at Texas fans arrogance, but not surprised.

Longtime Big 8 fan myself, but mainly from a basketball perspective. I was very concerned when this merger occurred and still am because it took away the home and home series every year. I was all like, why in fuck do we need these Texass teams sullying up OUR conference? As fans, we liked things very much the way they were, and couldn't see the need to expand. You needed us more than we needed you, ok?

Whatever. It's all about money and prestige, so I guess this unholy marriage has worked out to some extent and we're stuck with you. Might as well make the best of it, eh?

And no, I don't anticipate either Nebraska or Mizzou bailing ever. We're charter members of when it was the Big 6 (I'm fairly certain - KC will correct if wrong), the predecessor of the Big 8. We won't leave, but you may.

Actaully Mizzou, Nebraska, and Oklahoma were all charter members of, what I believe, was the original Missouri Valley Conference which eveolved into the Big 6... But yeah.

Nebraska would bail in a heart beat. I think your alma Mater would as well for the Big Televen but only the Big Televen.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Not to ruin the Big XII debate going on, but . . .

You love Pac 10 so damn much get ready for them cause at the rate the Tsips are going you'll be enjoying their company a lot sooner than you expect while Oklahoma and A&M are partying with schools such as Bama, LSU, and Florida in the SEC. On the bright side foir the rest of us we will get to watch UCLA lay the wood on you by double digit margins of victory on a regular basis rather than just sporadically...

SCS,

Please explain. The SEC already is at twelve schools, which seems to me to be critical mass. Not saying that Oklahoma and aTm aren't more appealing than some of the SEC members right now, and I know the SEC is definitely ruthless enough to drop some of its members if it's in the conference's best interests to do so. But SEC fan already goes to the "our conference is a meat-grinder" card. Why would SEC fan want to drop some of the weak sisters in favor of Oklahoma and aTm?

[Goober McTuber]

Not to nitpick

But what the fuck, that's basically what you do.

I laughed.

And that's basically what I do.

[Terry in Crapchester]

But what the fuck, that's basically what you do.

I laughed.

And that's basically what I do.

Give yourself more credit than that. You're no slouch in the nitpicking department yourself. Which is why I laughed.

[Goober McTuber]

I laughed.

And that's basically what I do.

Give yourself more credit than that. You're no slouch in the nitpicking department yourself. Which is why I laughed.

Not surprising that my response went right over your head. I was giving myself lots of credit.

[SunCoastSooner]

Not to ruin the Big XII debate going on, but . . .

You love Pac 10 so damn much get ready for them cause at the rate the Tsips are going you'll be enjoying their company a lot sooner than you expect while Oklahoma and A&M are partying with schools such as Bama, LSU, and Florida in the SEC. On the bright side foir the rest of us we will get to watch UCLA lay the wood on you by double digit margins of victory on a regular basis rather than just sporadically...

SCS,

Please explain. The SEC already is at twelve schools, which seems to me to be critical mass. Not saying that Oklahoma and aTm aren't more appealing than some of the SEC members right now, and I know the SEC is definitely ruthless enough to drop some of its members if it's in the conference's best interests to do so. But SEC fan already goes to the "our conference is a meat-grinder" card. Why would SEC fan want to drop some of the weak sisters in favor of Oklahoma and aTm?

Because if the SEC has proven one thing over the last 2 decades is that they want hear "Show me the money."

A lot of SEC instituions are not happy with Miss State's athletic program as whole. Outside of Baseball they have not been competitive at any revenue sport in a very long time and baseball is a borderline revenue sport in college as we all are aware. The SEc has courted Oklahoma before sucvh as in the Mid 60s and has sent feelers (often through the local fish wraps) as to Oklahoma possibly becoming a member someday in the not so distant future.

I like the Big 12 and enjoy the fact that Texass is an in conference rivalry these days. Most OU people do and that is why OU and UT back each other up so often with the rest of the conference but unlike UT Oklahoma has learned how to compromise as well. If the conference is going to get killed slowly like the SWC (which is what it seems is occurring to me with the North's now long dismall stretch in revenue sports) then I don't want us to be left holding the bag in Norman. Texass can talk the talk all they want but the fact the matter is that if they were as all important as they seem to believe it would have been them and A&M offered by the SEC and Not arkiesaw and A&M. South Carolina was the big weiner in the Texass self delusional early 90s fantasies.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Not surprising that my response went right over your head. I was giving myself lots of credit.

And not surprising that my response went right over yours. Sarcasm.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Because if the SEC has proven one thing over the last 2 decades is that they want hear "Show me the money."

A lot of SEC instituions are not happy with Miss State's athletic program as whole. Outside of Baseball they have not been competitive at any revenue sport in a very long time and baseball is a borderline revenue sport in college as we all are aware. The SEc has courted Oklahoma before sucvh as in the Mid 60s and has sent feelers (often through the local fish wraps) as to Oklahoma possibly becoming a member someday in the not so distant future.

I see what you're getting at here. But would it be in Oklahoma's best interests to jump to the SEC?

The big problem for Oklahoma in doing that, as I see it, would be rivalries. Oklahoma-Arkansas? Oklahoma-LSU? Oklahoma-Alabama? Yeah, I suppose these could all be rivalries eventually, but they'd take years, maybe even decades, to develop into that. Meanwhile, you probably lose your existing rivalries, or at least the more important ones.

Oklahoma-Texas? If the Big 12 were to implode the way you suggest, the feelings would be so bitter that you might never see this one renewed. Oklahoma-Nebraska? You can't even schedule this one on an annual basis right now, and you still happen to be in the same conference.

And let's not forget about Oklahoma State. I don't doubt that Sooner Fan doesn't care in the least if the Little Brother series dies. But I suspect the Oklahoma legislature might feel differently. So that accounts for one OOC game per year if OU joins the SEC.

I like the Big 12 and enjoy the fact that Texass is an in conference rivalry these days. Most OU people do and that is why OU and UT back each other up so often with the rest of the conference but unlike UT Oklahoma has learned how to compromise as well. If the conference is going to get killed slowly like the SWC (which is what it seems is occurring to me with the North's now long dismall stretch in revenue sports) then I don't want us to be left holding the bag in Norman. Texass can talk the talk all they want but the fact the matter is that if they were as all important as they seem to believe it would have been them and A&M offered by the SEC and Not arkiesaw and A&M. South Carolina was the big weiner in the Texass self delusional early 90s fantasies.

I remember the SEC's expansion in the early 90's a little differently.

IIRC, Arkansas was the first team to jump, and after that happened, the SEC targeted Florida State for its 12th member. Then Florida State shocked the SEC by going to the ACC instead. A little jarred by Florida State, the SEC then turned to Miami, but Miami accepted the Big East's offer before the SEC ever really got on track in pursuing Miami. With Florida State and Miami both out of the picture, the SEC next turned to South Carolina, which accepted.

It makes sense to me that the SEC would have preferred either FSU or Miami to Texas or aTm in the early 90's. Both FSU and Miami had superior football programs to either of those Texas schools at the time. And while that's not true of South Carolina, South Carolina, like FSU or Miami, provided something to the SEC that Texas or aTm could not -- geographic balance. In fairness, Auburn, AL is slightly east of Nashville, but putting Vandy in the east and Auburn in the west makes sense overall. With either Texas or aTm in place of South Carolina, you would have had Auburn in the east, or both Auburn and Alabama in the east and either Vandy or Kentucky in the west.

[Goober McTuber]

Not surprising that my response went right over your head. I was giving myself lots of credit.

And not surprising that my response went right over yours. Sarcasm.

Nope. You still don't get it.

[Left Seater]

Sun Coast,

In my opinion I don't think you can seperate Texas and OU when discussing conference rule. Those two are so in lock step that saying Texas is trying to ruin the Big 12 and that OU isn't is short sided. They are doing whatever they are doing together.

As for TV markets, Dallas isn't considered as part of the Big 12 when it comes to TV contracts. Dallas is considered part of the MWC while Houston is C-USA. Granted Texas, OU, and A&M have the biggest following in the Dallas area.

I can also only guess that when you mentioned Texas pissing off the other conference members about the officials you are refering to the probable future merging of Big 11 and Big 12 officiating staffs. OU is just as big a driver of that movement as Texas is. In fact Stoops is on record as only wanting to see a crew once a season.

[WolverineSteve]

As far as the Big 12, I've got to give the nod to Texas. As a total athletic dept. They're nationally recognizable in CFB, Hoops, Baseball, Softball, Track and field, hell I'm sure I'm missing a couple. OU is CFB, some hoops, and sometimes Baseball. Over the last 5 years or so, Texas is above OU in most seasons in most sports. That's the way I see it as an outsider looking in.

[Shine]

Sorry but fuck all sports outside of CFB and CBB in terms of this thread topic. Let's be honest, the vast majority of the public as well as the student bodies at most schools could give 2 shits about all the other sports. I'd maybe not include baseball in the "shit sports" but not by much. When I think of "value" to a conference I don't think the fact that IU is a dominant men's soccer program adds any value to the conference. Ditto anyone's track program or whatever. Football and hoops, in that order, are what drives the bus.

As far as the Big 10, upon further review I will make the adjustments others mentioned on my list. I put Wiscy over scUM because I put too much emphasis on the current state of the FB/BB programs and discounted too heavily tradition and I discounted MSU too much because their BB program is clearly on par with IU's now. So my revised list would be:

Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Indiana
Penn State
Illinois
Iowa
Purdue
Minnesota
Northwestern

[RadioFan]

I will say for the record that Oklahoma State's 152 Wrestling championships and 96 Golf Championships as well as 50 Rodeo championships are invaluable to the Big 12 and make them #1.

Rack Shine, btw.

[War Wagon]

Sorry but fuck all sports outside of CFB and CBB in terms of this thread topic. Let's be honest, the vast majority of the public as well as the student bodies at most schools could give 2 shits about all the other sports. I'd maybe not include baseball in the "shit sports" but not by much. When I think of "value" to a conference I don't think the fact that IU is a dominant men's soccer program adds any value to the conference. Ditto anyone's track program or whatever. Football and hoops, in that order, are what drives the bus.

What drives the bus is academics, Shine. Tell me you knew.

As for those "shit sports" you denigrate, the athletes who participate don't feel the same way. Actually, they could give 2 shits about what YOU or the rest of the "student bodies" think of their paltry endeavor.

Apparently, the august instituitions feel they're somewhat worthy, being as how they offer scholarships for participation.

Go figure.

[WolverineSteve]

I discounted MSU too much because their BB program is clearly on par with IU's now.

I hate MSU more than anyone, but Sparty rates way above IU right now. IU would do well to get on par with State in any sport.

[The Seer]

Sorry but fuck all sports outside of CFB and CBB in terms of this thread topic. Let's be honest, the vast majority of the public as well as the student bodies at most schools could give 2 shits about all the other sports. I'd maybe not include baseball in the "shit sports" but not by much. When I think of "value" to a conference I don't think the fact that IU is a dominant men's soccer program adds any value to the conference. Ditto anyone's track program or whatever. Football and hoops, in that order, are what drives the bus.

What drives the bus is academics, Shine. Tell me you knew.

As for those "shit sports" you denigrate, the athletes who participate don't feel the same way. Actually, they could give 2 shits about what YOU or the rest of the "student bodies" think of their paltry endeavor.

Apparently, the august instituitions feel they're somewhat worthy, being as how they offer scholarships for participation.

Go figure.

Concur.

As long as the other institutions compete in the "shit sports" someone has to win those things. If you compete, you try to win. Think the 4 year consensus all-american in football that has only 2 daughters and they return to his school of glory and are competing in volleyball, or women's hoops or some such "shit sport" and he is proud of their ability to compete and win agrees that they are wasting their time in shit sports?

Some "shit sports" athletes from UCLA -

Rafer Johnson, Jackie Robinson, Arthur Ashe, Jimmy Connors, Ann Meyers, etc. etc. etc. etc....

Someone shoulda told them to quit, not worth competing....

[Shine]

I see reading comprehension is still not required to post here.

If you look at what I wrote I clearly said IN TERMS OF THIS THREAD TOPIC. I didn't say or imply the other sports overall are trivial and don't matter but in the context of the topic of this thread they don't. Again if reading comprehension weren't such a challenge for WW and Seer you guys might have seen that the original post singles out football and basketball. Again in terms of value to a conference using the parameters outlined in the original post only two sports factor into the discussion.


WolvSteve- The past history and tradition of IU still far outweighs that of Sparty, so despite MSU being ahead in the recent past when talking about the PROGRAM I'd still place IU ahead. There's a reason the IU games set record numbers for viewers on ESPN and it isn't because they rate behind MSU as a program. Also, now that Coach Sampson is on the sidelines IU will retake their rightful place atop the B10 hoops landscape. And soon.

[PSUFAN]

Shine, IU and PSU have similar traits in this analysis. Both have great tradition at ONE of the criteria, and ignominy at the other. IU's hoops tradition is almost without parallel, while PSU's football tradition is very strong - but not without parallel, IMO. Therefore, I'll agree with you and revise IU to be above PSU...but I need to hear the arguments for Wisconsin made a little more cogently.

[WolverineSteve]

Also, now that Coach Sampson is on the sidelines IU will retake their rightful place atop the B10 hoops landscape. And soon.

This is true. With a load of solid coaches in the B10, the conf. should be near the top of CBB's lanscape in the coming years. With Bielein I may have a dog in that hunt. It'll be fun at the very least.

[See You Next Wednesday]

I actually went about htis scientifically for the Big 10, rating from 1 to 11 all programs in football and basekball in two dimensions, history and recent success. I gave a 60% wieght to football over basketball and a 60% weight to recent success over history in each sport. My rankings are, with football and basketball individual ranks in parens):

1) Ohio State (1,1)
2) Michigan (2,5)
3) Wisconsin (3,3)
4) Michigan State (6,2)
5) Iowa (5, 6)
6) Penn State (4,10)
7) Purdue (7,8)
Indiana (11,4)
9) Minnesota (8,9)
10) Illinous (10,7)
11) Northwestern (9,11)

If I did this on a different day I would probably come up with some other ranking.

[L45B]

With regard to the Big Ten I wanted to follow suit with SYNW, but ended up getting a little crazier. As a base, I weighted four categories Historical Success/Reputation (40%), Recent Success of Last Decade (30%), Future Success (20%) & Fan Base (10%). And I tried to narrow the gap a little bit from 60/40 to 55/45 (FB/BB). Detailed breakout goes as follows:

Historical Success/Reputation
*FB - 22%
*BB - 18%

Recent Success
*FB - 17%
*BB - 13%

Future Success
*FB (current facilities) - 8%
*FB (current coaching staff, sorry Michigan) - 3%
*BB (current facilities) - 7%
*BB (current coaching staff) - 2%

Fan Base
*National Market - 6%
*Local Market - 4%

And I came up with...

1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Wisconsin
5. Illinois
6. Iowa
7. Penn State
8. Indiana
9. Purdue
10. Minnesota
11. Northwestern

This, of course, is subject to change.

[Shine]

PSU- The reason I have Wiscy so high is because recently and looking ahead they are very well positioned in both football and basketball. So despite not much tradition to fall back on they have current and future on their side in both sports.

SYNW- I'd be curious to see exactly how IU could have 4th on the hoops scale, seeing as how they'd rate #1 on the historic list. Wiscy is solid now but was dreck in the past. My hoops only rankings would look like this:

Historic- Recent-

1- IU 1- MSU
2- MSU 2- OSU
3- OSU 3- Wisconsin
4- Michigan 4- Illinois
5- Illinois 5- IU
6- Purdue 6- Iowa
7- Iowa 7- Purdue
8- Minnesota 8- Michigan
9- Wisconsin 9- Minnesota
10- Northwestern 10- Penn St
11- Penn St 11- Northwestern


WolvSteve- I think with the influx in coaching talent the Big 10 will be THE college hoops conference within the next 3 years. I think Michigan will be in the mix because Bielein is a helluva coach and he'll get recruiting back on track.

[King Crimson]

SYNW- I'd be curious to see exactly how IU could have 4th on the hoops scale, seeing as how they'd rate #1 on the historic list.

i was kinda wondering about that too. thinking i misread the criteria. i mean, even Mike Davis made a Final Four in 01. i guess you've got tOSU, MSU, and Wiscy in the last 10 years as well.

[King Crimson]

here's my Big XII list:

1. UT: because the media hard-on is a product of two state media markets and success across the athletic boards and obscenely deep pockets. national championship in football, and FF and Elite 8 in hoops. baseball NC as well. only OU's stretch of beating UT in the RRS from 2000 to 2004 kept them from being the conference poster-child.

2. OU: better than anyone over the last 30 years in the conference in the revenue sports. UT closing the gap and better in hoops the last 3-4 years. small media markets but national appeal.

3. NU: somebody has to carry the North or else the conference turns into a failing joke. good baseball, national fanbase. still not sold on Callahan, seems more style than substance. hoops?

4. KU: simply one of the great hoops programs.

5. ATM: hoops after Gillespie? Still a somewhat national name in football though have been pretty average since the 90's...despite the regionality of the SWC.

6. Okie State: better football than most Sooners will give them credit for, and 2 final fours in the last 15 years (96 with Big Country?, would be more than 15). as successful as anyone but USC and a few others in the non-revenue sports. big Pickens money, new facilities.

7. Missouri: not many championships to show, but looking up in football and basketball. KC and STL markets. Norm had some very good teams in the late 80's and early 90's, never made a FF.

8. Texas Tech: Bobby Knight gets the Raiders on TV, and will win any "bubble" battle with a conference team....because the networks want RMK in the Dance. see 2002 i think, CU went 10-6 in conference and beat Tech head to head but got dumped for KNight on "Selection Sunday". Leach has been successful, won the Holiday Bowl....gives them the recent nod over CU.

9. Colorado: lot of TV appearances in football in the last 20 years, at one time most in D-1 over a stretch of years. Denver market is debatable. Hoops not as historically bad as most people think since the formation of the conference. lots of cross country and skiing title the Big XII likes to brag about in their promos. usually ranked as one of the top 30 football programs. a split NC still buys cred (Big .

10. KSU: not much to brag about in hoops since Lon Kruger's 88 team. football in a transition period....and a few top 10 teams with Snyder. what else?

11. ISU: football in bad shape. would like to rank higher due to the two excellent hoops teams Floyd and Eustachy had....but can't.

12. Baylor: have a women's hoops championship, and good baseball. should be competitive in hoops this year. can't get over the hump in football.

[SunCoastSooner]

...Texas is one of the elite programs in college athletics. We are constantly one of the best in Football...

Guess you were in a coma from 1984 until 1998 huh Harv?

[King Crimson]

...Texas is one of the elite programs in college athletics. We are constantly one of the best in Football...

Guess you were in a coma from 1984 until 1998 huh Harv?

Harv already addressed that time period with the airtight refutation that UT leads in merchandise sales, today.

[SunCoastSooner]

Because if the SEC has proven one thing over the last 2 decades is that they want hear "Show me the money."

A lot of SEC instituions are not happy with Miss State's athletic program as whole. Outside of Baseball they have not been competitive at any revenue sport in a very long time and baseball is a borderline revenue sport in college as we all are aware. The SEc has courted Oklahoma before sucvh as in the Mid 60s and has sent feelers (often through the local fish wraps) as to Oklahoma possibly becoming a member someday in the not so distant future.

I see what you're getting at here. But would it be in Oklahoma's best interests to jump to the SEC?

The big problem for Oklahoma in doing that, as I see it, would be rivalries. Oklahoma-Arkansas? Oklahoma-LSU? Oklahoma-Alabama? Yeah, I suppose these could all be rivalries eventually, but they'd take years, maybe even decades, to develop into that. Meanwhile, you probably lose your existing rivalries, or at least the more important ones.

Oklahoma-Texas? If the Big 12 were to implode the way you suggest, the feelings would be so bitter that you might never see this one renewed. Oklahoma-Nebraska? You can't even schedule this one on an annual basis right now, and you still happen to be in the same conference.

And let's not forget about Oklahoma State. I don't doubt that Sooner Fan doesn't care in the least if the Little Brother series dies. But I suspect the Oklahoma legislature might feel differently. So that accounts for one OOC game per year if OU joins the SEC.

I like the Big 12 and enjoy the fact that Texass is an in conference rivalry these days. Most OU people do and that is why OU and UT back each other up so often with the rest of the conference but unlike UT Oklahoma has learned how to compromise as well. If the conference is going to get killed slowly like the SWC (which is what it seems is occurring to me with the North's now long dismall stretch in revenue sports) then I don't want us to be left holding the bag in Norman. Texass can talk the talk all they want but the fact the matter is that if they were as all important as they seem to believe it would have been them and A&M offered by the SEC and Not arkiesaw and A&M. South Carolina was the big weiner in the Texass self delusional early 90s fantasies.

I remember the SEC's expansion in the early 90's a little differently.

IIRC, Arkansas was the first team to jump, and after that happened, the SEC targeted Florida State for its 12th member. Then Florida State shocked the SEC by going to the ACC instead. A little jarred by Florida State, the SEC then turned to Miami, but Miami accepted the Big East's offer before the SEC ever really got on track in pursuing Miami. With Florida State and Miami both out of the picture, the SEC next turned to South Carolina, which accepted.

It makes sense to me that the SEC would have preferred either FSU or Miami to Texas or aTm in the early 90's. Both FSU and Miami had superior football programs to either of those Texas schools at the time. And while that's not true of South Carolina, South Carolina, like FSU or Miami, provided something to the SEC that Texas or aTm could not -- geographic balance. In fairness, Auburn, AL is slightly east of Nashville, but putting Vandy in the east and Auburn in the west makes sense overall. With either Texas or aTm in place of South Carolina, you would have had Auburn in the east, or both Auburn and Alabama in the east and either Vandy or Kentucky in the west.

Arkansas was the first to jump but Texas A&M was offered a spot before any other school. UT used its political influence to let them know that the state legislature would never allow it.

[SunCoastSooner]

Sun Coast,

In my opinion I don't think you can seperate Texas and OU when discussing conference rule. Those two are so in lock step that saying Texas is trying to ruin the Big 12 and that OU isn't is short sided. They are doing whatever they are doing together.

As for TV markets, Dallas isn't considered as part of the Big 12 when it comes to TV contracts. Dallas is considered part of the MWC while Houston is C-USA. Granted Texas, OU, and A&M have the biggest following in the Dallas area.

I can also only guess that when you mentioned Texas pissing off the other conference members about the officials you are refering to the probable future merging of Big 11 and Big 12 officiating staffs. OU is just as big a driver of that movement as Texas is. In fact Stoops is on record as only wanting to see a crew once a season.

No this is a move being pushed by the rest of the conference. The previous standards are what pissed them off. You have explained the reasons for so many texas officials in the past and I understand them but that doesn't mnean the conference likes it.

[SunCoastSooner]

As far as the Big 12, I've got to give the nod to Texas. As a total athletic dept. They're nationally recognizable in CFB, Hoops, Baseball, Softball, Track and field, hell I'm sure I'm missing a couple. OU is CFB, some hoops, and sometimes Baseball. Over the last 5 years or so, Texas is above OU in most seasons in most sports. That's the way I see it as an outsider looking in.

Steve we own Texas in basketball. To state that Texass has a better program overall basketball wise is absolutly laughable. There isn't even an argument for Texass, unlike football they don't even have a heads up argument to fall back on.

Our softball program is heads and shoulders better than Texas and is he reason why OU has won more than half of the conference titles in the sport since the Big 12 was formed and has the most WCWS apperances of any school outside of the Pac 10. Oklahoma is also the defending conference champs at track and field and the current Wolrd Record holder in the 100m is an OU grad...

[See You Next Wednesday]

SYNW- I'd be curious to see exactly how IU could have 4th on the hoops scale, seeing as how they'd rate #1 on the historic list. Wiscy is solid now but was dreck in the past.

Well the first thing is that I am a Wisconsin alum, so I clearly have some bias, as we all do. Secondly, I did this on the fly and if I did it again it woudl probably be different. I will admit that IU looks a little low on the b-ball side (I did have the #1 historically, can't remember about recently, to be honest). I cretainly woudl not go to war over my rankings. Thirdly, Wisconsin is not really as dreckful as I think you say. They do have a NCAA championship to their name and when I was there they had some pretty decent teams. But I did probably put them too high in terms of history, being a biased Cheesehead and all.

[Danimal]

Hey the 'skers do have the best volleyball team in the country, could go undefeated this year.

[SunCoastSooner]

Hey the 'skers do have the best volleyball team in the country, could go undefeated this year.

OU might actualy give you a good match this season...

[Terry in Crapchester]

Arkansas was the first to jump but Texas A&M was offered a spot before any other school. UT used its political influence to let them know that the state legislature would never allow it.

I had not heard about aTm getting the offer first, but I'll take your word for it. In any event, had aTm accepted, I suspect that neither Arkansas nor Oklahoma would have been offered. Based on what occurred, it looks in hindsight like the SEC was interested in adding one team in the west and one in the east. I know that they were very interested in Florida State before Florida State decided to join the ACC.

It's also worth noting that during the period we are discussing, aTm's football program was better than Texas' was. But nobody with an ounce of objectivity would argue that that is still true today.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although it's kind of late in the discussion to bring this up, I agree with the gist of Mike's original post, but for different reasons. Imho, college football was better before the emergence of the superconferences, back in the day when there were more independent big-time programs, not just ND. I realize that given the age of some of the posters in here, some people might not remember the period I'm talking about very clearly.

[SunCoastSooner]

Arkansas was the first to jump but Texas A&M was offered a spot before any other school. UT used its political influence to let them know that the state legislature would never allow it.

I had not heard about aTm getting the offer first, but I'll take your word for it. In any event, had aTm accepted, I suspect that neither Arkansas nor Oklahoma would have been offered. Based on what occurred, it looks in hindsight like the SEC was interested in adding one team in the west and one in the east. I know that they were very interested in Florida State before Florida State decided to join the ACC.

It's also worth noting that during the period we are discussing, aTm's football program was better than Texas' was. But nobody with an ounce of objectivity would argue that that is still true today.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although it's kind of late in the discussion to bring this up, I agree with the gist of Mike's original post, but for different reasons. Imho, college football was better before the emergence of the superconferences, back in the day when there were more independent big-time programs, not just ND. I realize that given the age of some of the posters in here, some people might not remember the period I'm talking about very clearly.

Texas A&M never had an oppertunity to accept before UT shat on the proposal. aTm was being pushed by LSU very hard. aTm would be offered before TExass even today. They have far more in common with the SEC schools.

[King Crimson]

a few unrelated points/speculations:

1. in order for the old bowl system to be viable and flexible enough to accommodate different MNC scenarios....there had to be contending independents such as PSU, ND, FSU, and Miami inna day that were not locked into previous standing conference bowl commitments.

2. my understanding is that Arkansas split the SWC because they (Frank Broyles) felt that they were at a serious competitive disadvantage playing all their away games in the state of Texas as the only non-Texas school in the conference.

3. ATM was also a great fit for the SEC since it got the SEC into the Houston market where LSU has *some* presence and recruits some....but with ATM in the SEC Houston becomes at least as much an SEC city than Big whatever/SWC.

4. Arkansas joining the SEC is an entirely different set of factors from the formation of the Big XII....seems to me. In addition to being many years earlier.