SEC, PAC-10 or Big Slow Ten? Texas on the Move?

We would get them a BCS bid and then never let anyone else have it….HAHAHAHAHA

but the viability of a cable channel/lucrative network deal (the make or break in a changing landscape) is still in question for a conference that has below-average interest for a league its size. The problem remains that the four most powerful schools in the league i.e. the California contingent, don’t have much impact in their own markets relative to similar institutions in other parts of the country. Additionally, Texas could be significantly downgrading their exposure by joining a conference that play a good chunk of their games after the rest of the country has gone to bed/press. Finally, this is all moot if Stanford continues to take the hard-line in expansion talks; the Pac 10 requires a unanimous vote for expansion and the Cardinal balked at UT the last time around.

Its about increasing its reputation as a research institution, then money and athletics, just like it was in the 90’s we wanted in the Pac10 and Big Ten to increase our research rep. Athletics while important to all of us is not at the top of the list of the people who make UT’s decisions. Now that A&M is now an AAU member too (since 2001), they and maybe Tech (who is trying to become an AAU member) will tag-a-long with us to the Pac10 if we go anywhere but I doubt it. Not to mention I will never chant S-E-C-S-E-C-S-E-C! Bring back the SWC if the North runs away, just add in the state of Oklahoma and we’ll be set.

SEC is sometimes, but not always, clearly better in football. Sometimes the Big 12 is clearly better. Some years it’s not clear at all. But that’s just football.

Anyone who’s read my missives on conference realignment know I believe that a move to the Big 10 is the most likely and the best outcome for Texas, but as a California resident, I have to take issue with the characterization of Californians as “priding themselves in having nothing to do with the uncouth folk of Texas.” I don’t see that at all out here, at least no more than you would see in any other state. And unless you really want to resurrect the SWC, Texas has deal with this in any conference affiliation.

I also tend to believe that stating that Californians “have nothing in common with UT” is, to say the least, a slight exaggeration.

And if Texas did move to the Pac 10, I hardly think that Texas would “always” be trying to prove that we’re “almost” as good as USC!

Think of it more in terms of, if things for the Big XII start falling apart, and Texas believes its in its best interest to find a new conference affiliation, which of these is not like the other academically: (1) Big 10; (2) Pac 10; (3) SEC.

It’s not even close.

. . . and I’m (non-snarkily) curious. How would independence work? What I can’t get my head around is who we’d be playing football in late October and who we’d be playing in basketball on weeknights in February. Not to mention how we’d qualify for a lesser BCS game the two or three times a decade we don’t qualify for a national championship game, since I doubt that a school like Texas, which would be abandoning the conference system, would receive the same sort of preferential treatment the historically-independent Notre Dame has received in terms of what it takes to qualify.

The SEC is the land of the watery beer and trailer-park girls. Give me NorCal girls and Sierra Nevada over a pickup-driving bleach-blonde with a pack of Budweiser.

One is politics and perception framing. UT, despite its vast endowment, relies heavily on state funding for its operational budget, and would very much like to receive a larger amount from the state for R&D. Most politicians are fairly lazy observers of higher education. If the president can go to the legislature and say “The University of Texas at Austin is in the bottom half of research universities in the conference” or “The University of Texas Trails Wisconsin by 400 million dollars”, that will be more likely to draw funding than “We’re behind Florida and kicking the crap out of everyone else”.

Another is block granting, which was covered extensively at Barking Carnival, though in a little too Pollyanna fashion for my taste. From a Federal standpoint (which is where the bulk of a lot of research money comes from) they like to spread the money around. Faculty and Administrators who interact with regularity – and yes, contrary to my impressions as an undergrad, many faculty go to football games like mad and travel – are more likely to create a combined pitch on a project. A combined pitch between physics programs at UT and Wisconsin has appeal in a way that UT Bama does not.

Another is faculty prestige. Faculty don’t read U.S. News and World reports when they’re pondering a new job, they look at how much money the school uses for research projects. These faculty, grudgingly, agree to teach some students in order to use the schools facilities and umbrella for grants. Some of these faculty are actually good instructors. Education improves, everybody wins. Taking whatever means are necessary to increase research dollars is good in the long term.

Tied directly into this is faculty perception. The CIC was founded explicitly by academics to be create a friendly “academic” rivalry between members of the Big 10. Hence, CIC membership following Big 10 membership. Is there a logical reason for learned people to define their horizons so narrowly? Perhaps not, but wouldn’t you like to beat OU at something too? Realistically, a similar setup wouldn’t be possible in the SEC.

The ACC however, has started a similar organization, but it has its own issues because of the diversity of schools – i.e. the academic profile overlap of, for instance, Miami::UNC or Maryland::BC is a broader gulf than you’d think. The Big 10 schools and Chicago hit a very similar overall profile.

All the teams from Texas, California, and FLORIDA!!!

Huge fan bases, Huge TV contracts, Huge football!

Together, we could make our own political party!

athletic interests are not in control here. the school presidents and the boards of regents hold all the cards. not just the big cards. certainly they are concerned for the athletic interests, but the overall good of the various universities is what is going to guide them.

ut has fought a long battle with itself and with the rest of the state, especially including the legislature, to achieve the sort of status that the harvards and stanfords enjoy. any conference realignment that has the potential to improve our standing in the academic/research world is going to make a very large difference in the minds of the people who hold the cards.

Land Grants are eligible for special federal allocations, which go to A&M as the Texas land grant. That’s responsible for some relatively sizable portion of the difference.