Big 10 expansion has begun! (if this link is right)

[wsp4820]

IMO, the academic allignment argument is a farce. If your were the brass within the CU system, wouldn't you like to have another excuse to participate in a few more retreats and seminars in Pac 10 cities?

The only numbers that are being thrown around with regards to conference allignment is TV broadcast revenue. Period.

Everything else is windowdressing.

I think you're half right. I totally agree that your academic standing isn't going to make a move to a conference possible, but I do think a school's academic standing could break a move to a conference. So, it's a good feather to have in your cap even if it's not the most important one.

 

[Deleted member 807]

I think you're half right. I totally agree that your academic standing isn't going to make a move to a conference possible, but I do think a school's academic standing could break a move to a conference. So, it's a good feather to have in your cap even if it's not the most important one.

Just for the sake of arguement, then why aren't the Ivy Leagues getting caught up with all of this expansion talk?

If this were about academics, the Ivy league would be going after the likes of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbuilt and Rice.

 

[NW Buff]

Say this does happen and Texas and OU leave as well. Does CU really have a choice other than to join the Pac?

Sadly, this really isn't up to CU to make this decision. I agree that the Pac 10 makes sense but if they don't invite CU or don't decide to expand then we are out in the cold.

 

[NW Buff]

Just for the sake of arguement, then why aren't the Ivy Leagues getting caught up with all of this expansion talk?

If this were about academics, the Ivy league would be going after the likes of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbuilt and Rice.

It's about sports and money, obviously. The Ivy League schools don't really get any significant revenue from sports so why expand for some tv contract that doesn't exist? That said, once a conference looks at the fit sports-wise, there are other reasons to include or exclude a school and academic fit is one of those.

 

[92Buff]

Sadly, this really isn't up to CU to make this decision. I agree that the Pac 10 makes sense but if they don't invite CU or don't decide to expand then we are out in the cold.

Exactly. Really hope this gets solidified for CU quickly before some asshat Texass schools srew it all up. Would love to see to see those ****ers go elsewhere since it seems everything they touch turns to s***.

 

[MtnBuff]

The arrogance of the Texas schools could very well work against them. The big players in the PAC10, U$C, UCLA, UW, have gotten used to having their voices listened to. The less influential schools like WSU, Cal, OSU have also seen how the Texas schools have run roughshod over the Big XII in terms of decision making. The PAC10 schools are used to not being pushed around in adminstering the league and I don't think they would like to see UT and aTm (or OU) repeat the process in their league.

It would be hard to turn down the potential revenue from the Texas TV market as well as their ability to travel and their stron alumni bases on the Pacific coast. At the same time I can easily see the PAC10 taking advantage of the caotic situation created by the reformation of conferences to tell Texas that they have a take it or leave it invitation. Texas has the SEC to use as a negotiating chip but a bunch of schools in the SEC aren't overly anxious to let Texas call the shots as well.

The PAC10 has and will continue to pass over BYU for this same reason. BYU brings a big TV audience and a strong alumni base with them. They travel very well, especially on the west coast. The problem is that they want to set scheduling conditions and other terms and despite their financial advantages the PAC10 has clearly shown that they are not interested in giving up control.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Exactly. Really hope this gets solidified for CU quickly before some asshat Texass schools srew it all up. Would love to see to see those ****ers go elsewhere since it seems everything they touch turns to s***.

The parties that would be lobbying on behalf of CU would naturally be Bruce Benson, Phil DiStephano, the Regents, and Governor Ritter. So atleast Colorado has that going for them.

No way any Texans could out manoever those guys when it comes to being proactive and doing the right thing by CU athletics.

 

[Nor Cal Buff]

IMO, the academic allignment argument is a farce. If your were the brass within the CU system, wouldn't you like to have another excuse to participate in a few more retreats and seminars in Pac 10 cities?

The only numbers that are being thrown around with regards to conference allignment is TV broadcast revenue. Period.

Everything else is windowdressing.

This is simply not true or BYU would have been in the Pac 10 a long time ago. Academics may not matter in other conferences but in the Big11Ten and the Pac 10 they do.

 

[Deleted member 807]

This is simply not true or BYU would have been in the Pac 10 a long time ago. Academics may not matter in other conferences but in the Big11Ten and the Pac 10 they do.

When it comes to BYU, there are more dimensions than simply academics. Just sayin'.
Besides, TV contracts weren't nearly so lucrative back then. Times change.

 

[92Buff]

The parties that would be lobbying on behalf of CU would naturally be Bruce Benson, Phil DiStephano, the Regents, and Governor Ritter. So atleast Colorado has that going for them.

No way any Texans could out manoever those guys when it comes to being proactive and doing the right thing by CU athletics.

You suck Skiddy. Way to just burst my bubble...

 

[seeyou]

I guess mizzu anounced today that they are going to the Big 10.

 

[huskermark]

I guess mizzu anounced today that they are going to the Big 10.

Post a link.

 

[ScottyBuff]

Just for the sake of arguement, then why aren't the Ivy Leagues getting caught up with all of this expansion talk?

If this were about academics, the Ivy league would be going after the likes of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbuilt and Rice.

Nobody is arguing that academics (research) are the ONLY factor in alignment.

Several factors have to line up together, academics being one of them.

If it were simply academics and TV markets then Rice would be a much bigger player in anyone's plans.

The popularity of the sports teams (attendance, donations, and TV ratings) is important as well.

I think that the athletic teams criteria is the first hurdle to be passed, and that is what the commissioner's office will review.

The next criteria is demographic data, TV markets, ratings, attendance impacts, etc, will be also reviewed by the commissioner's office and their potential TV partners.

Once those candidates are narrowed down then the conference presidents will review the academic impact and the strengths and weaknesses of the potential members, the long-term growth trends of the university, etc. Maybe all of them are acceptable, maybe none of them are.

 

[Razorbuff]

The arrogance of the Texas schools could very well work against them. The big players in the PAC10, U$C, UCLA, UW, have gotten used to having their voices listened to. The less influential schools like WSU, Cal, OSU have also seen how the Texas schools have run roughshod over the Big XII in terms of decision making. The PAC10 schools are used to not being pushed around in adminstering the league and I don't think they would like to see UT and aTm (or OU) repeat the process in their league.

It would be hard to turn down the potential revenue from the Texas TV market as well as their ability to travel and their stron alumni bases on the Pacific coast. At the same time I can easily see the PAC10 taking advantage of the caotic situation created by the reformation of conferences to tell Texas that they have a take it or leave it invitation. Texas has the SEC to use as a negotiating chip but a bunch of schools in the SEC aren't overly anxious to let Texas call the shots as well.

The PAC10 has and will continue to pass over BYU for this same reason. BYU brings a big TV audience and a strong alumni base with them. They travel very well, especially on the west coast. The problem is that they want to set scheduling conditions and other terms and despite their financial advantages the PAC10 has clearly shown that they are not interested in giving up control.

In a way TX has dug their own grave. Everyone sees them as a conference killer, they did it with the old SWC, and they have done it with the Big 12. Sure they will get picked up by a conference, but they had it great in the Big 12 with how the revenue system was set up. TX got richer at the expense of everyone else, and they called all the shots. Unfortunately for them, schools finally got fed up with it and are doing something about it. If CU jumps out as well as MU and NU, then TX has a decision to make. Do they try to bring in a few more TX teams and have a much weaker Big 12, or do they jump ship as well? Their best chance to run the show would be the PAC... no way in hell they come into the SEC and call the shots, that won't happen at all, too much money and power in the other schools to let UT run roughshod over the conference like what happened in the Big 12. Do they stay in a weakened conference? Go somewhere else and not run the show? Or do they pull a ND and try to go independent?

 

[ScottyBuff]

In a way TX has dug their own grave. Everyone sees them as a conference killer, they did it with the old SWC, and they have done it with the Big 12. Sure they will get picked up by a conference, but they had it great in the Big 12 with how the revenue system was set up. TX got richer at the expense of everyone else, and they called all the shots. Unfortunately for them, schools finally got fed up with it and are doing something about it. If CU jumps out as well as MU and NU, then TX has a decision to make. Do they try to bring in a few more TX teams and have a much weaker Big 12, or do they jump ship as well? Their best chance to run the show would be the PAC... no way in hell they come into the SEC and call the shots, that won't happen at all, too much money and power in the other schools to let UT run roughshod over the conference like what happened in the Big 12. Do they stay in a weakened conference? Go somewhere else and not run the show? Or do they pull a ND and try to go independent?

Contrary to popular opinion I blame Baylor for the death of the SWC and Big 12.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Just for the sake of arguement, then why aren't the Ivy Leagues getting caught up with all of this expansion talk?

If this were about academics, the Ivy league would be going after the likes of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbuilt and Rice.

Money is king, but you're crazy if you think academics won't play a role here. The AD isn't making the final call on this, it will be Benson, DiStefano and the regents who don't answer to Mike Bohn. They answer to voters, faculty, and the state legislature and those groups will care about academics.

And IMO all those schools you named would jump tot the Ivy leage in half a heartbeat if they had the opportunity.

 

[Razorbuff]

Contrary to popular opinion I blame Baylor for the death of the SWC and Big 12.

Ann Richards had alot to do with the death of the SWC and Big 12, but she isn't the sole reason the conference fell apart. The death penalty for SMU, the domination of the conference (including some questionable officiating) by the Longhorns, and Arkansas leaving because of the Texas bias all helped to contribute to the demise of the SWC. That being said, Texas is a conference killer, as was witnessed with the Big 12, though Ann Richards required that those other TX schools be brought along into the conference, it is still UT that runs the show to everyone else's detriment. That's the huge problem with not splitting revenue, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, of course UT doesn't care because they just keep lining their pockets, but the conference as a whole takes a hit and gets weaker. Texas doesn't care about any of the other schools it is affiliated with, as long as they get theirs, and they won't when/ or if they move to a new conference. If they are allowed to come in and dictate terms, they will just run another conference into the ground the way they did the SWC and the Big 12.

 

[AlferdJasper]

I guess mizzu anounced today that they are going to the Big 10.

Post a link.

I believe this is still in the rumor stage. There was a story -- since removed from the local site -- that claimed the Missou to Big 10 was true and it had been posted on ESPN. Not exactly true.
Details here

"ESPN senior college sports writer Bruce Feldman says he spoke with the athletic director at a PAC-10 university saying that Missouri to the Big Ten was "a done deal."
The KOMU post went on to admit that:
"There isn't any other official confirmation of this report, on ESPN's website or elsewhere."
KOMU has since taken the story off its site.
All it took to determine if "a done deal" had really been done, or if it was not done, or undone, or well done, or whatever. . . was a telephone call to Missouri athletic director Mike Alden.

Read more: http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/870#ixzz0mnTMXx9y
​

 

[Deleted member 807]

Money is king, but you're crazy if you think academics won't play a role here. The AD isn't making the final call on this, it will be Benson, DiStefano and the regents who don't answer to Mike Bohn. They answer to voters, faculty, and the state legislature and those groups will care about academics.

And IMO all those schools you named would jump tot the Ivy leage in half a heartbeat if they had the opportunity.

There's no doubt that academics get's lots of lip service when discussing conference affiliations. Being classified as a tier 1 research institution gets you past the velet rope at the door. But it's still an arbitrary and irrelevant qualifier.

I still have seen nothing that shows how an affiliation with the Pac10 would help CU win research grants or attract top faculty. DiStephano has already said in that ESPN article that CU already has many ties to various Pac10 member school even without the Pac10 conference affiliation.

If the Pac were serious about academics, they'd be courting Cal Poly and Cal Inst of Tech. I have no idea how Arizona, ASU, Washington State or Oregon State are considered more attractive academically than those two brain shops.

Any discussion about academic status is window dressing. The focus in this conference reallignment has everything to do with negotiating attractive network contracts that are competitive with the SEC and Big10.

We can talk all we want about how academics matter in conference decissions, but at the end of the day, it doesn't.

 

[ScottyBuff]

Ann Richards had alot to do with the death of the SWC and Big 12, but she isn't the sole reason the conference fell apart. The death penalty for SMU, the domination of the conference (including some questionable officiating) by the Longhorns, and Arkansas leaving because of the Texas bias all helped to contribute to the demise of the SWC. That being said, Texas is a conference killer, as was witnessed with the Big 12, though Ann Richards required that those other TX schools be brought along into the conference, it is still UT that runs the show to everyone else's detriment. That's the huge problem with not splitting revenue, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, of course UT doesn't care because they just keep lining their pockets, but the conference as a whole takes a hit and gets weaker. Texas doesn't care about any of the other schools it is affiliated with, as long as they get theirs, and they won't when/ or if they move to a new conference. If they are allowed to come in and dictate terms, they will just run another conference into the ground the way they did the SWC and the Big 12.

Obviously my sarcasm didn't carry though on my original post.

 

[Buffnik]

There's no doubt that academics get's lots of lip service when discussing conference affiliations. Being classified as a tier 1 research institution gets you past the velet rope at the door. But it's still an arbitrary and irrelevant qualifier.

I still have seen nothing that shows how an affiliation with the Pac10 would help CU win research grants or attract top faculty. DiStephano has already said in that ESPN article that CU already has many ties to various Pac10 member school even without the Pac10 conference affiliation.

If the Pac were serious about academics, they'd be courting Cal Poly and Cal Inst of Tech. I have no idea how Arizona, ASU, Washington State or Oregon State are considered more attractive academically than those two brain shops.

Any discussion about academic status is window dressing. The focus in this conference reallignment has everything to do with negotiating attractive network contracts that are competitive with the SEC and Big10.

We can talk all we want about how academics matter in conference decissions, but at the end of the day, it doesn't.

It is what's holding it up with the Pac 10, though. One of their best paths to 16 is to first own the Mountain and Pacific time zones. The way to accomplish that is to take CU (#16 Denver media market), Utah (#31 Salt Lake media market), UNLV (#42 Las Vegas media market), and New Mexico (#44 Albuquerque-Santa Fe media market). These are all growth cities that would expand the Pac's popularity and give it ownership of the West. They are also state universities with large alumni bases. Unfortunately, UNLV and New Mexico aren't meeting the academic criteria necessary to get the votes.

Also, if it was all about the money, the Pac would look to San Diego State and Fresno State to get to 16. As far as media markets, San Diego is #28 and Fresno-Visalia is #55. While they're not necessarily additive since the Pac would already consider itself dominant in those markets, there's also the argument to be made that by taking those 2 schools you cripple the Mountain West's cable network by keeping it out of California and also cripple California recruiting for the MWC and WAC (San Jose State's not gonna get it done and there is literally no one else). Unfortunately, SDSU and FSU have a long way to go before they meet the Pac's academic standards.

Frankly, though, I'd like to see this happen. Maybe Fresno isn't necessary. #55 is a pretty small media market and may not be worth it. There aren't a lot of recruits that come out of that area either. And they're the worst academics of all the programs I mentioned. If I'm calling the shots, I'd leave Fresno alone and target Kansas. They're an outlier since they're in the Central time zone, but they meet all the other requirements I'd be looking for: Tier 1 graduate research, Association of American Universities member, large and successful AD with good football and great basketball, #32 Kansas City media market, long history with Colorado that lends itself to a rivalry (like Denver and KC in the NFL)... and it looks like they'll be left out of Big 10 expansion so their only place to look may be west.

So, reducing the academic requirement a bit, looking to dominate the Western USA for media purposes, and getting to a 16-team conference that could have a 4-team playoff for the conference championship every year in football (like the Big Televen is talking about), here is my 16-team Pac West Conference:

Arizona (#66 Tucson market)
Arizona State (#12 Phoenix market)
Cal (#6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose market) + (#20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto market)
Colorado (#16 Denver market)
Kansas (#32 Kansas City market)
New Mexico (#44 Albuquerque-Santa Fe market)
Oregon (#22 Portland market) + (#119 Eugene)
Oregon State (#22 Portland market)
San Diego State (#28 San Diego market)
Stanford (#6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose market) + (#20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto market)
UCLA (#2 Los Angeles market)
UNLV (#42 Las Vegas market)
USC (#2 Los Angeles market)
Utah (#31 Salt Lake City market)
Washington (#13 Seattle-Tacoma market)
Washington State (#75 Spokane market)

That would give the new conference 12 of the Top 50 markets in its direct footprint, complete dominance of the US West, and a number of ancillary Top 150 markets that would be within its footprint and could realistically be expected to carry a Pac-West network on its expanded basic cable (#55 Fresno-Visalia, #69 Wichita-Hutchinson, #71 Honolulu, #92 Colorado Springs-Pueblo, #108 Reno, #112 Boise, #120 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-San Luis Obispo, #124 Monterey-Salinas, #125 Bakersfield, #126 Yakima-Pasco-Richland-Kennewick, #130 Chico-Redding, #136 Topeka, #140 Medford-Kalamath Falls, #142 Palm Springs and #147 Joplin/MO-Pittsburg/KS).

(P.S. The university I feel kind of bad for in all this talk is Iowa State. They're a good school and an AAU member for academics, have century-long ties to the Big 8 schools in football and an equally long rivalry with Big 10 Iowa, they've been great in Women's basketball, good in Men's basketball, and pretty good in a number of other sports, and have been free of scandal. But the Des Moines-Ames media market is only ranked #72, most of the population in that market is located in U of Iowa-dominated Des Moines, and the Clones are the #3 team in the rest of their small population state (#1 Iowa, #2 Nebraska, #3 Iowa State). Unless UT, OU and TAMU decide to save a weakened Big 12, ISU is destined for mid-major status.)

 

[TheEvilBeak]

If Nebraska leaves the B12, Texas will be hurt the most. In essence, they will lose a vote for non revenue sharing and I doubt any new team coming in will vote to keep it. I would think that there would be enough votes at that time to change the revenue sharing in the remaining B12, unless it really dissolves.

From CU's standpoint...would CU be hurt by this? I would see Ut/A $ M then heading to the Pac 10. Would the Pac call it good at that point and CU gets left out or would they move to 14 teams? Does the State of Texas make UT/A$M take the 2 tag alongs again like the formation of the B12?

I didn't think this stuff would go down but it appears to be a pretty serious deal now.

 

[DesertDawg526]

So, reducing the academic requirement a bit, looking to dominate the Western USA for media purposes, and getting to a 16-team conference that could have a 4-team playoff for the conference championship every year in football (like the Big Televen is talking about), here is my 16-team Pac West Conference:

Arizona (#66 Tucson market)
Arizona State (#12 Phoenix market)
Cal (#6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose market) + (#20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto market)
Colorado (#16 Denver market)
Kansas (#32 Kansas City market)
New Mexico (#44 Albuquerque-Santa Fe market)
Oregon (#22 Portland market) + (#119 Eugene)
Oregon State (#22 Portland market)
San Diego State (#28 San Diego market)
Stanford (#6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose market) + (#20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto market)
UCLA (#2 Los Angeles market)
UNLV (#42 Las Vegas market)
USC (#2 Los Angeles market)
Utah (#31 Salt Lake City market)
Washington (#13 Seattle-Tacoma market)
Washington State (#75 Spokane market)

I doubt this could happen, but I'd love to see it.

Kansas is a bit too far east in some regards, but their basketball tradition would be a welcome addition.

I think if the Pac expands to 12 it'll be a huge mistake. I really think they need to think 14 or 16 to regain respect as a national powerhouse conference.

I also think if the Pac expands to 14 or 16 they will pursue Texas, hard. This could be very interesting, because right now the power lies in L.A. Will they give it up? I think most fans here would not want to leave the Big XII only to join another conference with Texas. Having said that, I think a Pac expansion could also mean conference revenue-sharing similar to the SEC... would Texas tolerate that?

I can see a 14 or 16 team Pac with or without UNLV.

 

[Buffnik]

Beak: Good points. Something tells me, though, that UT and TAMU would dominate the expansion talks and be able to stipulate that the new schools came in under less than ideal conditions that locked in a Texas-favorable revenue model. Any of the WAC, MWC and C-USA schools they would target would be happy to take the deal because it's still a ton more money than they currently get from their conference affiliation (plus a huge boost to prestige, which will help fundraising and enrollment aps). Only exception to this might be BYU if they were an expansion target, but they'd see themselves as being able to benefit from unequal sharing so they wouldn't put up a fight.

UT and TAMU can certainly save the Big 12 if they choose to do so. But the pickings are slim and, you're right, they may either be better off jumping to the Pac... or (what I think), joining with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to expand the SEC to 16 teams. Texas wouldn't like the academics in that conference, but having all of its rivals on the schedule (OU, TAMU, Arkansas) would be enough to get them over it. (Ideally, the SEC would drop Vanderbilt for Florida State too.)

Check out that SEC-16, which I've divided into into 4 divisions for a 4-team playoff and that huge payday (in addition to adding the Texas markets):

SEC A
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
South Carolina

SEC B
Alabama
Auburn
Kentucky
Tennessee

SEC C
Arkansas
LSU
Mississippi
Mississippi State

SEC D
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas A&M

Why do I think, despite what seems to make sense, that Texas-sized egos will prevail? They'll watch CU, NU, and MU leave. That drops the conference down to 9 teams. I could totally see the conference reorganizing at that point under new bylaws and without Iowa State. They would need at least 3 more teams, but they'd probably go for 7 in order to be a 16-team superconference that could have a 4-team playoff for its champion.

Texas-egos would think about how wonderful it would be to have a Texas Sports Network. It would dominate the states of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas as the initial footprint. They'd look to add more Texas by bringing in TCU and Houston. They'd also want to expand East and West. Arkansas and LSU would be targets they probably won't get. But why not look at Memphis, Southern Miss and LA Tech/Tulane/LA-Lafayette to the East. For Western expansion, New Mexico BYU and Air Force (over CSU due to better facilities, cultural fit, better media market & more national appeal). That's a 16-team conference of:

Air Force
Baylor
BYU
Houston
Kansas
Kansas State
Louisiana Tech (most likely of the LA schools)
Memphis
New Mexico (out if Arkansas is in)
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Southern Miss
Texas
Texas A&M
TCU
Texas Tech

That gives the new Texas Sports Network coverage in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Tennessee, Louisiana and Mississippi (and likely Arkansas and Missouri). UT sees it as a conference it can dominate. Why wouldn't they do this? Especially if they could replace New Mexico with Arkansas and have all their rivals under their thumb in the same conference? Wouldn't all the new members jump at this opportunity versus what they currently have (except Arkansas, who'd have to be wooed)? Don't be surprised if some form of that happens.

 

[UrbanaBuff]

But for every Stanford out there, you have many more elite academic schools that DON'T have major sports programs. Plus, in 3 of the 5 cases you mentioned, sports serve as an embarrassment to the school rather than something to be proud of.

The University of Chicago set the tone when they resigned from the Big Ten in the '40s. They chose to focus on academia instead, which was viewed nobly. Now look at the University Athletic Association... UChicago, Wash U, Emory, NYU, et al. They are just a half-step behind the Ivy, and they only compete on the D-III level. These schools have enough money in their endowments that they don't need to sell out and get their teeth kicked in on the field just for some kitty.

I've long thought that Northwestern should take the high road and leave the Big Ten. When Rutgers was the Big East whipping boy in the '90s, there was a large push by the faculty for them to do the same thing.

Just for the sake of arguement, then why aren't the Ivy Leagues getting caught up with all of this expansion talk?

If this were about academics, the Ivy league would be going after the likes of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbuilt and Rice.

 

[PhillyBuff]

But for every Stanford out there, you have many more elite academic schools that DON'T have major sports programs. Plus, in 3 of the 5 cases you mentioned, sports serve as an embarrassment to the school rather than something to be proud of.

The University of Chicago set the tone when they resigned from the Big Ten in the '40s. They chose to focus on academia instead, which was viewed nobly. Now look at the University Athletic Association... UChicago, Wash U, Emory, NYU, et al. They are just a half-step behind the Ivy, and they only compete on the D-III level. These schools have enough money in their endowments that they don't need to sell out and get their teeth kicked in on the field just for some kitty.

I've long thought that Northwestern should take the high road and leave the Big Ten. When Rutgers was the Big East whipping boy in the '90s, there was a large push by the faculty for them to do the same thing.

but college is so much more fun when you have football!

 

[Mick Ronson]

slightly OT: I would have bet money that when i was at Colorado College in the 90's that they would drop D-1 hockey in the next 10 years. as far as embarrassments, if you are including Vandy.....they won a bowl game year before last and has won NCAA tournament games in 2 of the last 4 years with a Sweet 16 2 or 3 years ago. Vandy was a #1 seed in the NCAA baseball tournament couple years ago, too. not sure i'd say that's THAT embarrassing. comparatively speaking to what this board is dedicated too.

yes, I went to Vandy for 3 semesters but we had some family health issues and i t-ferred back home to CC to finish up. big fan of both schools (as schools), sports i was always a Buff like my pops taught me.