SEC Ponders Potential Big Five Move

[ShockerFever]

Veritas, are you trying to become the strawman that some have tried to create when describing me? Trust me, you don't want to be that guy.

Slow down and allow yourself to admit that this isn't an issue with the clear cut answer that you make it out to be.

That last post felt like a cross between my evil twin and Fever. Not a good combo!

It's always nice to see a person feel as if they are important enough to mention oneself at the beginning of every post.

Congrats on yet another Fever namedrop to the poster you brag about "ignoring". Point made again.

[Shocker1976]

There is NO scenario that includes KU and excludes OSU. That's your KU homer side wishing. OSU is in about a billion times better situation than KU.

As this "movement" is all about football and we are concerned with its potential impact on Shocker Basketball; the final shakeout of this power play by the SEC could help the Shockers' scheduling efforts due to significant cherry picking of the existing Big 12. Consider -

Guided by obvious geography and rivalries (existing/potential) the SEC elects to become an 18 team conference by adding Texas (98,976 avg attendance), Oklahoma (84,722 avg attendance), Oklahoma State (59,126 avg attendance) and Texas Tech (57,933 avg attendance). Following the same two principles the B1G elects to become a 16 team conference by adding Iowa State (55,361 avg attendance) and WVU (52,910 avg attendance).

The basketball schedules of Kansas, Kansas State and Baylor would be open for scheduling opportunities for the Shockers.

FYI - K State averages 52,887 fans per game; Baylor averages 45,948; TCU averages 43,598; and Kansas averages 37,884.

[60Shock]

They may have been able to get away with limiting the payment of athletes to only football players and/or BB players in the early 1950's and 1960's.

But, I have to believe that there is no way this does not scream of discrimination in this time and age.

[Ricardo del Rio]

Texas is big and powerful, but...... They lost their coattails. The PAC will take them but Texas has lost the ability to dictate anything, much less what any other schools they get to bring. The earlier Big 12 mess exposed them. The Longhorn Network mess further took away any power another conference would cede to Texas. Conferences are skittish about Texas and there is no trust. Sure, the PAC will take Texas, but they get no more consideration on issues, and probably a lot less than Washington State. No way does the PAC take Texas Tech for any reason, much less to appease Texas.

Furthermore, the Texas Star is in stall mode in several sports, which it usually dominates. Throw in the discrimination law suits and the lead pony may well be in a tail slide to use a little bit acrobatic flying lingo.

Regardless of any parties' interest, the University of Texas is the single most unadmired university in the nation. It is without question and you can discount my Aggie bias.

[Kung Wu]

Regardless of any parties' interest, the University of Texas is the single most unadmired university in the nation. It is without question and you can discount my Aggie bias.

By who? I know lots of people who want to send their kids there, that have no affiliation with the school. I know that's anecdotal but there are lots of plain folk that admire Texas. But I don't think you were referring to we the proletariat. I think you are referring to some bourgeoisie class of characters. Who? Academics? Employers?

[Kung Wu]

Title IX is a GREAT reason for sports-heavy schools to want to break away from the NCAA and create a semi-pro system. Once you create a semi-pro system it becomes practically impossible to argue Title IX conflict. All that needs to happen is you pay the person a salary to play semi-pro ball, and don't give them a scholarship. They are welcome to use their income to pay for tuition, take a loan, apply for a grant, use daddy's money -- whatever -- to take some classes. But scholarships for paid athletes would be unnecessary and remove Title IX conflict issues for those schools that can afford to pay their athletes.

Schools still relying on scholarships will still have to be in compliance and will have the burden of spreading their funds via scholarships and will find it even more difficult to compete. Also they will not be able to recruit elite athletes -- because they will follow the money. This clearly creates a complete new paradigm of "schools who can afford to go semi-pro" and "schools that can't afford to do so".

Ironically, while it may be a mess for WSU, I am for it. I do not like Title IX. I also do not like the NCAA.

[shockmonster]

Ironically, while it may be a mess for WSU, I am for it. I do not like Title IX. I also do not like the NCAA.

Hmm. This is an interesting comment. "A mess for WSU" may be a best case scenario. Worst case scenarios haven't been mentioned yet.

[Aargh]

I believe Ricardo is indicating that no one wants Texas in their conference. I don't think anyone would question Texas as an academic institution. But in athletics, they're the rich kid who's had his way his entire life. Not accustomed to playing well with others, and seeing no reson that should be necessary.

[1979Shocker]

I didn't see this mentioned but it looks like college athletes will get paid.

College athletes to get paid for likeness used in EA Sports video games

College athletes who were featured in EA Sports video games since 2003 are finally getting paid for the use of their likeness. Take that, NCAA.

Football and basketball plaintiffs filed a $40 million settlement Friday with video game manufacturer EA Sports and the Collegiate Licensing Corporation, according to multiple reports. As many as 100,000 former players could receive up to $4,000.

[WSUwatcher]

By who? I know lots of people who want to send their kids there, that have no affiliation with the school. I know that's anecdotal but there are lots of plain folk that admire Texas. But I don't think you were referring to we the proletariat. I think you are referring to some bourgeoisie class of characters. Who? Academics? Employers?

There are lots of people who find Texas -- and especially the Texas fans -- to be annoyingly self-important and entitled; there are also lots of people who are jealous of Texas's prominence. But in contemporary college athletics, it's not about emotional reactions or feelings, it's about what a school brings to the table for a conference financially. That's what will determine who will go where in any future realignment -- not whether someone is liked or disliked.

[Shockeriffic]

I always wondered how the sports video games got away with it. 2K wasn't EA but in their college basketball games Brauer was a preset name that announcers would say correctly. There's no way they can argue that their announcers would say all those weird names correctly but that the players aren't based off the real people.

[SB Shock]

I am for it. I do not like Title IX. I also do not like the NCAA.

Title IX is federal law, not an NCAA regulation. Just because you get rid of the NCAA doesn't get rid of Title IX. As long as college level football is tied to Colleges I don't think you are going to be able to escape Title IX.

[Kung Wu]

Title IX is federal law, not an NCAA regulation. Just because you get rid of the NCAA doesn't get rid of Title IX. As long as college level football is tied to Colleges I don't think you are going to be able to escape Title IX.

I know what Title IX is. Athletically it is primarily tied to balancing scholarships. If you set up a semi-pro league and don't give out scholarships, it will be very difficult to argue Title IX non-compliance. Heck it's even possible some of the athletes would be exempt from attending college at all, at some point.

[Shocker1976]

Or it could be your EMOTIONAL reasoning getting in the way of RATIONAL thought. Endeavor to use your own thought rather than the regular Group Think process you usually follow.

KU's Advantages
--KU is the flagship school of the state. OU is the flagship school of Oklahoma. OSU is not.
--KU's endowment is $1.56 Billion. OSU is $817 Million
-- KU's enrollment is 27k. OSU is 23k
--Kansas population is 2.8m. Oklahoma is 3.8m (Taking BOTH OU and OSU would split the state's viewship = 1.9m per). Texas population is 28m
--Kansas is a national brand in basketball. OSU is a regional brand in all sports except perhaps wrestling and golf
--Kansas fits better into a geographic footprint with the B1G in contrast to OSU with B1G though OU is a strong enough national brand for the PAC 12 (OSU is not)
--KU owns the region's largest city = Kansas City and viewership would spill over into missourah. OSU might own Tulsa but certainly not OKC. OSU viewership might spill out of Payne county and be spotty throughout the state of Oklahoma

OSU advantages
T. Boone Pickens
Better regionally recognized football program than KU
KU football has pretty much sucked since Gayle Sayers but even KSU has a better recognized football program than OSU.

Political Clout
--Texas has long coat tails in contrast to OU and will probably take along with them to the PAC 12: Tech and possibly Baylor (3 total)
--KU seems to have shaken KSU from their coat tails

It is my opinion when you view the facts and include the subjective POTENTIAL of KU vs OSU, it seems pretty clear that your opinion is tainted by your hate of KU rather than based on anything with value.

Of course the real challenges for all Big XII schools might be the GoR (Big XII Grant of Rights) which might make all the speculating a moot point.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8jb5kvZz0PcUzJpdV9YaVZHaFE/edit?pli=1

You are much better in reporting a misleading basketball schedule and your supposed "inside knowledge" that really equates to rumors, inneuendo and half truths. Stick to what you're good at which is being a sheep pretending to be a wolf.

Veritas I enjoy reading your posts on both Shockernet and the Phog but IMO you are tilting with windmills on this issue. Those KU advantages you list are weak at best and indefensible at worst - KU as a national brand in basketball is a true statement but lacks relevance as the issue is football not basketball. As for those other advantages, take off your rose colored glasses and rethink your argument.

[SB Shock]

I know what Title IX is. Athletically it is primarily tied to balancing scholarships.

No, it about providing equal opportunity and end discriminating practices of colleges

If you set up a semi-pro league and don't give out scholarships, it will be very difficult to argue Title IX non-compliance. Heck it's even possible some of the athletes would be exempt from attending college at all, at some point.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having "colleges"? At some point it may be time for Colleges to relook at really what their mission statement is. Is it to provide an education? Is it using sports to provide more opportunity to get an education? Or is it to be a poorly run sports franchise business?