More Conference Wackiness

Another long post, sorry. But now that I've gotten on board the conference expansion punditry bandwagon, I may as well keep going, right?

The thing that happened today: Nebraska "applied for membership" in the Big Ten and its "application" was "accepted." (From the Big Ten's website: "In order for an institution to be admitted to the Big Ten Conference, it must submit a written application, which must then be approved by at least 70 percent of the Big Ten COP/C. The University of Nebraska Board of Regents formally submitted an application to join the Big Ten Conference Friday afternoon. The Big Ten COP/C then met via conference call and approved Nebraska's application".) Clearly, everybody involved had already decided this was going to go down, but when your conference is 114 years old, I think we can forgive a little pretentious formality.

The one thing about this that surprised me is that Nebraska will be moving on this relatively quickly, with "competition to begin in all sports for the 2011-2012 school year." (In contrast, Colorado is expected [as of now] to start competing with the Pac-whatevernumber in 2012.) They might incur some financial penalties for bailing with so little notice, if there remains a Big XII to which to pay penalties. On the bright side, that means there'll just be one really awkward year of Zombie 12 competition. I think we're all relieved about that.

The other item of note from that press release: no hint of an impending conference name-change. Are we really going to have to keep up with this farce of a conference called the Big Ten having a number of members becoming increasingly distant from ten? Not that I have any good suggestions. They can't be the Big Twelve because that's copyrighted and, apparently, cursed.

The other Thing That Happened today was that Boise State moved from the Western Athletic Conference (AKA the Boise State and the Boisettes Conference, AKA the I Guess We All Have to Pay for Flights to Hawaii, Huh? Conference) to the Mountain West Conference, which is a move I find quietly intriguing. As I mentioned in the comments yesterday, I cherish a small hope that perhaps the MWC can make the jump from middling to major conference--they've at least got the best chance of any of the middling conferences to do so. If they're going to, wooing Boise State is a good step (although it will subject MWC fans to watching games played on that awful, awful field).

But enough about things that happened. Let's turn our attention to rumors and speculation!

First of all, it's looking less and less likely that the Big Ten is going to issue an invite to Missouri anytime in the foreseeable future. This is hilarious. They were the ones who've been threatening the rest of the Big XII with leaving for the Big Ten, but I guess they forgot that they were, at best, the Big Ten's third choice. I think their outspoken snittiness at least contributed to the destabilization of the Big XII, so this is enjoyable comeuppance. It's even worse than getting passed over for that bowl game, isn't it, Mizzou?

Second of all, there are some rumors floating around out there that the proposed rat king of a conference, the Pac-16, may not be a sure thing. Yesterday there was outlier talk that perhaps t.u. and A&M would go to the Big Ten while Oklahoma would go to the SEC while Oklahoma State would still end up going to the Pac-10 (for some reason). This scenario would depend (among other things) on t.u. and A&M being able to ditch Texas Tech, since Tech would not meet the Big Ten's academic standards.

Topic to which I will return later: yes, the Big Ten genuinely has academic standards. It's more usual (I believe) to associate the Pac-10 with scholarly snootiness, but they don't have the surprisingly high standards of the Big Ten.

More interesting and more credible rumors have been flying today about the possibility of A&M breaking away from t.u. and doing its own thing--specifically, joining the SEC. Rumblings about this have been reported on Sports Illustrated's site, ESPN, and elsewhere. I just don't know how credible these reports are or, if they are credible, if the sources are just bluffing. I know Gene Stallings told some people that staying with t.u. is not a sure thing, but has anybody else said so? It's true that no A&M sources have seemed as outspoken about wanting to stay with texas as people from Oklahoma and Oklahoma State have, but is that just because A&M doesn't want to look as sycophantic as the Okies? Also, would the Texas legislature allow this to happen? (Is the Texas legislature in session right now? I assume not, since it usually isn't.)

A part of me is kind of hoping for the SEC move to happen. I am not excited about the Pac-16. I'm really not. I don't see how a 16-team conference will even work (the WAC tried it and it failed abysmally). Also, SEC football is the best football but, I realize, that's a double-edged sword. I think it would be fun to be an SEC fan, but I can't pretend than A&M would have an easy time winning there. It would be really, really hard, and A&M has had a hard enough time in recent years that it's tough to be optimistic about our chances in a better conference. Maybe the Pac-16 deal will be for the best, meaning of course "the best" out of a bunch of lousy options.

Sigh.

So, I made the mistake a few times today of reading comments after some articles. What these made clear to me (besides the eternal lesson of "don't read comments") was that the average sports fan/internet commenter knows jack about Texas A&M. A recurring opinion was, in a nutshell, screw A&M, they'd be a better academic fit in the SEC anyway because they suck as a school. This is stupid.

I know that most of the people who read this blog are sympathetic to Texas A&M anyway, but I want to arm you with some facts in case you get into discussions/arguments with other people.

Fact: Texas A&M consistently ranks in the top 25 in US News and World Report's public university rankings; it is 22 this year, 61st overall, and is considered a Tier 1 university. These rankings aren't the last and only word on the quality of academic institutions, but they are widely respected and useful. So:

In the Big 12 as it existed on Monday (that is, with 12 schools), A&M was the second-highest ranked university, trailing only texas. Colorado was the third-highest, at 77.

If A&M were dropped into the Big Ten as it existed on Monday, they would be a little below middle of the pack, tying at 7th with Purdue and Minnesota (behind Northwestern, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Penn State, and Ohio State. texas would tie at 5th with Penn State; despite its fairly solid academic profile, Colorado would be [and Nebraska will be] dead last in the conference).

If A&M were dropped into the Pac-10 as it existed on Monday, they would come in a trifle higher, at sixth (behind Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and Washington; because of a wide gap in the middle of the Pac-10, texas would also be/will be? sixth and Colorado is sixth).

If A&M were to join the SEC tomorrow, they would actually drop from their Big XII spot, coming in 4th behind Vanderbilt, Florida, and Georgia. Academically, the SEC is weaker overall, but pretty strong at the top.

The point is, Texas A&M would, academically speaking, easily qualify for any conference out there. (OK, not the Ivy League, but you know what I mean.)

Another Fact: Texas A&M is a member of the American Association of Universities.

The AAU is an important organization of research universities. It only has 63 members, and membership in it is a pretty cut-and-dried signal of academic prestige. One of the ways you can tell that the Big Ten doesn't mess around academically is that every single member of the Big Ten is also in the AAU. Seven old Big XII schools are in it (t.u. and A&M, plus everybody in the North but K-State), seven Pac-10 schools are in it, and only two SEC schools (Vandy and Florida) are in it. This is just another way in which A&M would not only fail to detract from a conference's academic pedigree, but in most cases enhance it.

In conclusion, if anybody tries to tell you that A&M is a stupid school, you will know (if you didn't already) that that person is only showcasing his or her own ignorance.


I'll put the US News and World Report scores I compiled after the break.

The magazine ranks the top half of American colleges, then puts the bottom half unranked into their third and fourth tiers (so, if you divide colleges into quarters, third tier schools are in the second-lowest of those quarters. And no, there's no second tier for some reason).

Old Big 12:
1. t.u.: 47th
2. A&M: 61st
3. Colorado: 77th
4. Baylor: 80th
5. Iowa State: 88th
6. Nebraska: 96th
Kansas: 96th
8. OU: 102nd
Mizzou: 102nd
10. Tech, Oke State, and K-State: third tier

Old Big Ten
1. Northwestern: 12th
2. Michigan: 27th
3. Wisconsin: 39th
Illinois: 39th
5. Penn State: 47th
6. Ohio State: 53rd
7. Purdue: 61st
Minnesota: 61st
9. Iowa: 71st
Indiana: 71st
Michigan State: 71st
(so in the New Big Ten, Nebraska will be #12)

Old Pac-10
1. Stanford: 4th
2. Cal-Berkeley: 21st
3. UCLA: 24th
4. USC: 26th
5. Washington: 42nd
(and here's that gap where Colorado will go, and where t.u. and A&M might go)
6. Arizona: 102nd (where it would tie with OU)
7. Washington State: 106th
8. Oregon: 115th
9. Arizona State: 121st
10. Oregon State: third tier

SEC:
1. Vanderbilt: 17th
2. Florida: 47th
3. Georgia: 58th
4. Auburn: 88th
5. 'Bama: 96th
6. Tennessee: 106th
7. South Carolina: 110th
8. Arkansas: 128th
LSU: 128th
Kentucky: 128th
11: Mississippi State and Ole Miss: third tier (insert obvious Mississippi joke here)