|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
02-21-2010, 03:41 AM | #1 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Washington AD--Pac 10 reaches out to Texas and Texas A&M (Pac 10 + Big 12 merger?)
Quote:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...e_threa_5.html |
|
02-22-2010, 04:34 PM | #2 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Say that Texas, A&M, OU, Colorado, Utah, and Nebraska were invited to join the Pac 10 schools to form the Pac 16.
In the Big 12, that would leave Texas Tech, Ok. St., Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State. But let's say Missouri goes to the Big 10. TT OSU Baylor KU KSU ISU Then from the MWC: BYU TCU UNLV New Mexico Air Force Wyoming Colorado St. SDSU If you kept everyone, that's 14 teams. Kansas obviously very good in basketball. Oklahoma State has a lot of resources and is up-and-coming in football. These scenarios where BYU is left out--I don't think it is the end of the world. And it's really what we should be prepared for. |
02-22-2010, 11:25 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
My dark horse for Pac 10 expansion is New Mexico. Nobody is talking about New Mexico, but it has a robust basketball tradtion and respected graduate programs including a medical school. It would help beef up the Pac 10's basketball. New Mexico has cache that even Utah can't claim with Santa Fe, a fairly mild climate, and all, and it is politically and religiously moderate. New Mexico has 27,000 students. If Colorado won't go I think it will be Utah and New Mexico. They would also be natural rivals.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
02-22-2010, 11:51 PM | #4 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
If New Mexico were taken, it would be on the basis of potential to be good. Because we know that they were mediocre with Rocky Long, which was a huge improvement over what they were before and after Rocky Long. Plus they don't get the support of their town.
Academically NM is a Tier 3 school. It's medical school is not particularly well-regarded. It isn't in the top 100 in research dollars. I've never met anyone who said they wanted to attend or train at New Mexico. I did meet a LDS guy who went to medical school there previously. They are a complete non-factor If they are taken in expansion it is merely because they are in a relatively large western market (Albqrq) and theoretically have the potential of growing. Me, I say beware universities that are commuter schools with history of poor support. Both Utah and New Mexico fit this category. |
02-22-2010, 11:55 PM | #5 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
02-23-2010, 12:00 AM | #6 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
1. located within a large population 2. easy to be admitted to Thus leading to lots of local kids enrolling, who live at home the entire time they are attend. Univ. of Utah fits this to a T. Cal and UCLA and USC definitely not, because they are not easy to be admitted to. I don't know enough about OU to comment, but it is a school that is known for having subpar academics, and thus I would expect there is easy admittance (and it is in the largest population area in Oklahoma). I don't know enough about Washington to comment. Since they have a much higher standing than Utah, it might be that they are actually difficult to get into. New Mexico and Utah are not among the elite public universities, and they exist to serve the average college-bound person in their states. Commuter universities. |
|
02-23-2010, 12:05 AM | #7 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
If you ever tried googling "commuter school" you wouldn't have to be putting more logs onto your anti-BYU fire.
Here's a kid wondering about U Dub and whether it is a commuter school. http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...er-school.html |
02-23-2010, 12:21 AM | #8 | ||
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Here's another good one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16889311 From the abstract: Quote:
Quote:
LOLz. Stupid Utes. |
||
02-23-2010, 12:24 AM | #9 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
BYU fans, please feel free to reference my post above. We often have to explain to Univ. of Utah graduates what we mean, and even after we have explained the obvious, they say "sure, but that's not true about the University of Utah."
You can link directly to it with the following URL: http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...89&postcount=8 Please use judiciously. We don't want heads to explode. At least not over our carpet. |
02-23-2010, 04:19 AM | #10 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
Utah is top tier on the U.S. News college (undergraduate) rankings even with the legislatively mandated relaxed standards for in-state students. There is not a material difference between Utah and BYU (all the public schools are depressed somewhat by relaxed standards for in-state applicants; still, yes, Washington is very hard to get into). Beyond the undergraduate programs, Utah is THE center of serious research, graduate programs and intellectual activity in a vast six state region (Utah, southern Idaho (I associate norther Idaho with the Northwest), New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, and Montana). Utah is better than Oregon by about any measure. Why do you suppose the Pac 10 won't touch BYU? No fan base? Weak athletic programs? As you well know, the Pac 10 would be embarrassed to be associated with BYU because of its academics life. Funny. BYU is suppose to be so hard to get into, but there sure seems to be a lot of stupid people who went there.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|