Realignment - The Academics Angle

IMHO, academics or research dollars and other academic affiliates (CIC, AAU) are a huge part. The decision to move will not be made by Mack or Dodds but by the academic minded administrators in the tower who are more interested in academic prestige and research funding than athletics. That’s why many people think the SEC is a non-starter for us.

I think the Big 10 is especially concerned with academics (if other factors are a fit like TV sets, culture are acceptable) than the PAC 10 since the Big 10 is also made up of AAU and CIC schools. The PAC 10 is concerned with academics of new members but the PAC 10 conference itself appears to be first and foremost an athletic conference. For this reason, I can MAYBE see a situation where the PAC 10 accepts say ou, tech and osu to get us and aggie. Maybe. I don’t ever see the Big 10 accepting anyone but us and aggie from the Big 12 academic wise.

I’m also coming to the realization that to form these so called super conferences the PAC 10 would be willing to let in tech to get the entire state of Texas and our TV sets. To get to the 16 team threshold you’re bound to have some undesirables academically. Tech and OSU and OU can sit in the corner with ASU ans WA. St. I guess.

In conclusion- San Dimas High School football rules!

You take a better view of the motives of the UT Administration than I do.

On ESPN or SI.com listed OU as an AAU school and I was excited because I didn’t think we were. Then I found out that it was wrong and I was right. Oh well.
That being said, Boren has improved OU’s academics tremendously since I was in school (2000-2004). Obviously we are still nowhere near you gents, but I’m not embarrassed at all to mention that I have an OU degree as I may be had I gone to some other Big 12 schools.

As has been mentioned by several on this board, that doesn’t entirely make sense, but the Ivy League, Big 10 (CIC), ACC, and SEC all have formed academic cooperatives along their athletic lines. I suppose the largest single contributing factor to this is the regular interface between faculty and administrators because of athletics (and yes, believe it or not, many faculty love sports). The CIC is the most famous example, with good reason, because they’re out in front and it doesn’t look like anyone can catch up. That said, results may vary, and graduate students/researchers stand to benefit the most. That’s important for UT, because the emphasis is on graduate programs.

But yes, according to former UT president Robert Berdahl, academics killed the move the SEC last time. The former SEC commish remembers differently but he also doesn’t remember negotiating with the President, only the athletic director, which probably says more about the way SEC schools conduct business than anything else.

It also should be noted that the Big 10 has higher academic requirements for athletes than the SEC, though these rules still don’t bring them up to the rest of the student body.

Had no idea that research dollars might in any way be pegged to conference membership. I’d teed up AAU membership as a starting point for this discussion (I’ve never heard of the CIC, so thanks for that), but learnedhand brings up academic requirements for athletes as well. Now there’s a genuine academic-athletic link I had overlooked. There’s also the athletes’ academic standing and graduation rates, I suppose. You figure these are all in the mix — along with market share and tv sets?