Should KU & KSU join the MVC?

[Veritas]

There is no way either KU or K-State joins the MoVal. A better question is whether WSU should stay in the MoVal or endeavor to move to a better league. The MoVal offers absolutely nothing for either KU or K-State.

KU will wind up in a BCS league. K-State will hold onto the coat-tails as long as KU and the Big XII wears the coat. K-State is a great fit for the Mountain West. KU is a good fit for the Big 10.

[mattdalt]

On what planet is KU a good fit for the B10?

The harsh reality is that KU brings nothing to the table, and remember, bball does not count. KU is not a premiere academic institution, they are not good in football, they carry zero national cache, they carry zero major media markets. So please explain what makes KU a good fit for the B10 other than wishful jayhawk thinking.

[ShauXTyme]

#104 in US News and World Report Academic Rankings for universities isn't exactly chopped liver - when looking at those ranked lower. Not exactly a KU fan, but don't trash them and say they have nothing to offer just because you don't like them.

[vtshocker]

KU is a good fit for the Big East. Big East is all about basketball and KU is only good at basketball

[shock]

I see Ku to B.east and KSU to the MW.

[60Shock]

Perhaps an interesting conference that would play all sports would be:

WSU
KU
KS,
Tulsa
Houston
Baylor
SMU
Texas Tech
Colorado State
Iowa State
Missouri State
CU

And with these local rivalries, if Wichita couldn't draw 30,000 for most and 45,000 for several of these football games, and up to 20,000+ for several home BB games, then all is probably lost anyway.

Yeah, I know the largest BB facility in town only handles 15,000, but that is because Wichita always plans small and rarely for the future.

[MoValley John]

Kansas will have options, maybe even more than Missouri. Kansas is not a Valley program. Basketball isn't driving the realignment bus, it's football. But whomever is smart enough to take Kansas gets a lot. Kansas can deliver the KC media market, Kansas does have a large, but not currently loyal to football following. With some success, the casual football following they have, has the potential to become a force. Plus, Kansas has an athletic budget of over $80 million. Kansas, if they don't stay tied to the hip with Kansas State, will be fine. I know Wichita State fans hate the Beakers, but they are what they are. Kansas shouldn't be in this discussion; Mizzou fits better and Baylor is a great fit.

Kansas State, on the other hand, has little of what Kansas has to offer. The only thing that separates Kansas State from the rest of the pack in the Valley is the Ahearn fund. It is a huge fund and keeps Kansas State afloat. That said, if Kansas State doesn't land somewhere that can replace $14 million a year in lost TV revenue, the Ahearn fund will become depleted and they will die a slow, agonizing death. In reality, Kansas State would fit nicely in the Valley and be able to reduce their athletic budget to a level more in line with their actual fanbase and giving levels, all the while, not destroying the Ahearn fund which has been built over almost 50 years. It is a hard, bitter pill for Kansas State fans to accept, but the Valley suits them and their zero national chamopionships perfectly.

[mattdalt]

#104 in US News and World Report Academic Rankings for universities isn't exactly chopped liver - when looking at those ranked lower. Not exactly a KU fan, but don't trash them and say they have nothing to offer just because you don't like them.

NW #12
Mich #29
Wisc #45
PSU #47
Ill #47
OSU #56
Pur #56
Minn #64
Iowa #72
Indy #75
MSU #79

and newcomer Neb #104, with a nationally recognized football progam.

I don't think admitting a "tied for lowest ranking" academic institution with ZERO football is a good fit. If you want to stretch, Mizzou, ranked at #94, would appear to be a much better fit than KU.

I don't hate KU, but is it our "kansas" pride that is hoping KU, and therefore, basketball, is not irrelevant. If KU basetball is irrelevant, where does that put our beloved Shockers?

[MoValley John]

#104 in US News and World Report Academic Rankings for universities isn't exactly chopped liver - when looking at those ranked lower. Not exactly a KU fan, but don't trash them and say they have nothing to offer just because you don't like them.

NW #12
Mich #29
Wics #45
PSU #47
Ill #47
OSU #56
Pur #56
Minn #64
Iowa #72
Indy #75
MSU #79

and newcomer Neb #104, with a nationally recognized football progam.

I don't think admitting a "tied for lowest ranking" academic institution with ZERO football is a good fit. If you want to stretch, Mizzou, ranked at #94, would appear to be a much better fit than KU.

I don't hate KU, but is it our "kansas" pride that is hoping KU, and therefore, basketball, is not irrelevant. If KU basetball is irrelevant, where does that put our beloved Shockers?

Basketball isn't irrelevent. But it isn't what is driving conference affiliation, either. Furthermore, fans often cite how academic institutions rank in this debate. Even when discussing the Big 10, these rankings are often much overblown. In the public's general perception, Kansas has a very good academic reputation. And as for Nebraska, their academic reputation equal to Kansas, but based on people's opinion, might be much lower than that of Kansas.

That said, if you look at what these rankings are based, it has much to do with research. Much of the research that KU does and Nebraska does, has an impact on their respective states. Their research is driven by the social and economic needs of the state. In Nebraska, that is agriculture. Ag research, and rural research in general, doesn't get the academic respect deserved. This leads to lower overall ratings, all the while, the school may actually be performing better than schools that rate higher, but get the boost because they happen to be researching AIDS.

The University of Nebraska took a big hit on their reputation, and were dropped from the AAU. At the end of the day, the AAU stated that Nebraska had improved greatly, but their research wasn't in fields that the AAU found to be cutting edge and significant. Part of this was driven by the University of Texas, which wanted to embarrass Nebraska, and pushed the issue of dropping Nebraska. The other part was that Nebraska no longer met the research standards because their research was in areas not considered vital, and thereby, didn't score as high. Nebraska does a lot of Ag research and road safety research, while important and cutting edge, it's not very exciting and doesn't bump them up on the rankings.

The biggest factor in Nebraska's scoring, however, came from a political move from within the University stystem itself. Many people are not aware of the medical research done by the University of Nebraska Medical Center. In fact, while UNMC hasn't touted itself to the general public as a leader in research, medical academia ranks it as one of the best in the country. In transplant research, UNMC is a world leader. This rersearch is what kept Nebraska in the AAU. Nebraska got credit for the research when the system was considered one. Nebraska completely separated all of the schools within their system. No longer could Nebraska claim research done at UNMC as their own. The school remained the same, research done at the University of Nebraska, in conjunction with UNMC kept pace, but credit for all of that research was given to UNMC. In a political move, Nebraska dropped in academic reputation and no longer met the standards of the AAU. The Big 10 understands all of this and that is why they weren't concerned about Nebraska's exclusion from the AAU. Nebraska, being a member of the Big 10, can still secure research through UNMC and be a research leader, both in funds being secured and scientific breakthroughs, all that changes is public perception of Nebraska, UNMC will get the credit, not Nebraska. Nebraska will still do a large portion of the research and be just as instramental in securing funds.

Keeping it all in perspective, I am not talking up Nebraska as a great school. Their academic standards aren't that high, they put out the same type of students as does Kansas, Wichita State, Iowa and Missouri. What I am stating, is when you lead a discussion with academic rankings, you must be careful. Academic rankings are slanted and favor institutions that lead with a "publish or perish" mentality. Tenure and research is as, or more important than teaching students at many of these institutions. The rankings often have less to do with the schools turning out well educated students and really doesn't always define the quality of education that the student body, at large, receives.

[MadDog]

I woke up way too early this morning and to kill time, perused football and basketball attendance figures. What really sucks for KSU is that they are clearly a BCS level program in football and basketball based on attendance. The Mountain West would be a total disaster for them. I don't have the exact numbers, but average football attenance at a typical MWC game looked to be about 25K, about half of KSU's current attendance. Even the flagship Boise State program only averaged 33K last year. And basketball is worse... looked like it was around 6K compared to KSU's 12K.

I believe KSU would lose a significant amount of their attendance over time, maybe back to the pre-Bill Snyder level. And of course they would lose maybe 25% of the budget by not getting that BCS/B12 revenue sharing. Total disaster for KSU in the Mountain West. At least if they were in the MVC they would have good basketball, and reasonable expenses for all of their non-revenue sports. Same would apply for all of the three schools left "on the bubble"....

[1979Shocker]

Big East could add Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri
By LENN ROBBINS

With the Pac-12 on the verge of expanding to 16 teams and the SEC poised to add Texas A&M, officials on the presidential, athletic director and conference levels in the Big East, ACC and Big 12 have been burning up the phone lines over the last 72 hours.

The results of those talks could forever change the makeup of the Big East, The Post has learned.

According to multiple sources, the most likely scenario -- should Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech leave the Big 12 for the Pac-12 -- would bring Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri to the Big East.

That would create a super conference with 20 schools playing all sports, including 12 FBS football members.

[MoValley John]

I woke up way too early this morning and to kill time, perused football and basketball attendance figures. What really sucks for KSU is that they are clearly a BCS level program in football and basketball based on attendance. The Mountain West would be a total disaster for them. I don't have the exact numbers, but average football attenance at a typical MWC game looked to be about 25K, about half of KSU's current attendance. Even the flagship Boise State program only averaged 33K last year. And basketball is worse... looked like it was around 6K compared to KSU's 12K.

I believe KSU would lose a significant amount of their attendance over time, maybe back to the pre-Bill Snyder level. And of course they would lose maybe 25% of the budget by not getting that BCS/B12 revenue sharing. Total disaster for KSU in the Mountain West. At least if they were in the MVC they would have good basketball, and reasonable expenses for all of their non-revenue sports. Same would apply for all of the three schools left "on the bubble"....

I don't know if you are correct in establishing a relationship to attendance figures and correlating that to being a "BCS Level" program. For example, basketball attendance is boosted at many BCS programs because of corporate sponsorships and crossover from people that buy football tickets also buy the package that allows them to get cheap basketball tickets. To take it a step further, compare the price of a a single-game basketball ticket at K-State with that of a single game ticket at Kansas. They are a universe apart.

I must disagree with the comparison of attendance figures and BCS worthiness. Without going too much in detail, being a member of a BCS conference will automatically inflate attendance numbers. Many of these reasons have little to do with a school's real ability to be a standalone "BCS program." Simply put, corporate sponsorship, many corporate sponsors that are affiliated with the conference, buy blocks if seats and inflate numbers, plus the fanbase of your opponents that travel well also inflate attendance figures. There are more and more reasons why attendance figures of marginal at best BCS teams are higher, but I won't go into detail. Vanderbilt has great numbers, but if they weren't in the SEC, with a 40,000 seat stadium and having to rely on interest from only Nashville, they would stink.

If you really think that Kansas State's attendance is a reason to think that they are a "BCS level" program, I will simply counter that in my opinion, no team that will charge as little as $10 for a seat in the stadium is a legitimate BCS program.

http://issuu.com/k-statesports/docs/2011ticketcatalog?mode=embed&layout=http%3A//skin.issuu.com/v/dark/layout.xml&showFlipBtn=true

Yes, Kansas State charges as little as $10 for their non-com games. They charge more for Big XII games because better competition, combined with oppsing fans traveling better, allows them to do so. Kansas State is only BCS because long before the Big 6, Big 8 and now Big XII were important, Kansas State was lucky enough to be a member. Kansas State has done little to make a case for being a "BCS level" program outside of being lucky enough to be a member of a BCS conference. That is also why they are in such shaky ground in the whole realignment discussion.

[MoValley John]

Big East could add Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri
By LENN ROBBINS

With the Pac-12 on the verge of expanding to 16 teams and the SEC poised to add Texas A&M, officials on the presidential, athletic director and conference levels in the Big East, ACC and Big 12 have been burning up the phone lines over the last 72 hours.

The results of those talks could forever change the makeup of the Big East, The Post has learned.

According to multiple sources, the most likely scenario -- should Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech leave the Big 12 for the Pac-12 -- would bring Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri to the Big East.

That would create a super conference with 20 schools playing all sports, including 12 FBS football members.

This has been discussed on many other boards as a possiblility, and it would be great news for K-State, there also has been the discussion that if this happened, the Big East could become a mega basketball conference (which it already is) but at the same time, possibly lose their status as a BCS AQ. This almost happened when they lost Miami and the others. With that, The Big East is trying very hard to increase their football profile and has had an open ivitation to all Big XII schools to join if the Big XII failed. The real question still remains if schools like Kansas State could afford to compete in all other Big East sports. While football would keep much of the TV money K-State gets from the Big XII now, basketball would break even or possibly make some more, all other sports would suffer greatly with prohibitive travel costs. And still, with those additions, would the Big East be powerful enough in football to demand the money, fan interest and respect in football that they so much desire?

[Snapshot9]

I don't know why these topics generate so much discussion when there is Zero chance of it ever happening.

[Aargh]

KSU's FB attendance will drop into the abyss when they're not playing Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, and other B12 schools whose fans travel well.

The only BEast FB schools I can name without looking them up are Syracuse and UConn. Losing the local and regional name schools as opponents will cost KSU a lot of KSU fans butts in seats.

There is no way KSU or KU can get anything resembling B12 money out of the BEast. The BEast is more basketball-oriented tghan the other BCS leagues. It's a good fit forf KU, but not so great for KSU.

Did I read thaqt right - that the BEast would have 20 teams for basketball? That's a bit unwieldly.