So…
SEC +
17. Ohio State
18. Michigan
19. North Carolina
20. Virginia
21. Notre Dame
22. Penn State
23. Maryland
24. Iowa
Big 12 +
17. Oregon
18. Washington
19. Wisconsin
20. USC
21. UCLA
22. Nebraska
23. Florida State
24. Clemson
So the B1G dissolves and the B12 survives. Yea, right.
1 Like
TODAY…but once we start zooming up the Academic charts, we will attract the interest of Out of state Traditional applicants looking to attend a UT version 2.0, in Texas, and we will elevate ourselves from a regional school to a Destination University.
When they return to their home region, they will travel to their Alma mater’s games
Our fan base, from the past, does NOT have to equal our fan base of the future.
1 Like
Explain your theory on how they will move the pieces to get rid of the dead weight in the B1G + ACC
More or less, but I don’t know about Maryland and Iowa. Not that I don’t think they’re valuable, I just don’t think they are fits for the SEC.
I think Nebraska and Wisconsin are honestly better fits for the SEC.
Also, I’m highly interested to see how Clemson continues to perform. It’s not working with Dabo, and a post-Dabo Clemson is going to be interesting.
The main point is that I don’t think Rust Belt football is going to be the profit machine without Michigan and Ohio State, and I think the SEC will make more TV money in the long run.
Given Big 12 already has dominant basketball schools as well as schools in the South and Pacific time zones, it makes more sense for schools like USC/UCLA/UO/UW to join the Big 12.
I doubt A&M would pack the house for Cusa over the long haul. Attendance would start to dwindle , recruiting would take a dive etc.The conf your in makes a difference bc of “relevance”. A&M has always been relevant so far and is an older school but they never would have built up the fanbase and tradition if not for the SWC and big12 then sec. The brand is built by association also. If you hang out with north Texas, your their peer and become them. Lsu had empty seats in the late 90s
Bc of losing so they too would have empties for Cusa. No way people go yr and yr with a 6 to 8 game home slate of mostly uab, coastal Carolina etc as a permanent deal. They only draw well for those now bc they are sec. Fans know it’s 1 game or so vs most. People would start to find other things to do vs going to Cusa games.
1 Like
I hope that you are right about that, but there are too many “old school” Coogs, such as John Whitmire, and some people on our board, that seem DEAD SET on getting in the way of that.
1 Like
Maybe not as a member of CUSA.
But as a member of any power conference, aTm will sell out for ANY opponent.
We are a 97 year old University so the University has a long way to go.
There were people that were DEAD SET on keeping Texas A&M an all White Male University, primarily for those with military affiliations.
That old guard lost THEIR WAY and so will ours.
I’m not saying we have to copy the University of Texas but many of the qualities that attract out of state Traditional students to UT can be replicated here BECAUSE we share a lot of the same core elements (large diverse heavily funded Texas public school, in a Power Conference, in the middle of a large city).
On the things we don’t share (Traditional Campus, Adjacent University District, Academic rankings, Majority High ROI students) we will get stronger in those areas of with each passing year.
2 Likes
Maybe.
But it’s always easier to attract out of students to a state’s flagship public than to a non-flagship public like UH.
Doesn’t matter anymore.
UH past a major political hurdle last November and that ‘Flag-ship like’ funding Increase coupled with the Power 4 presence will really start to put us in that Flagship like class.
Heck, we are already bigger, receive more funds, and have a larger endowment than MANY Power 4 Flagship Universities already.
We ARE the FLAGSHIP UNIVERSITY in the Houston region…a metro of almost 7.5 million.
2 Likes
Being a city’s public flagship means little if you are not the state’s flagship or co-flagship.
If it did, then Cleveland State would be a destination school. Of course, it’s not.
Only being a STATE’S flagship or co-flagship public matters in that regard.
We don’t hold that distinction, and unless/until we get a share of the PUF (which is HIGHLY unlikely), we never will.
I missed where Cleveland State was in a Power 4 Conference, had huge funding by their state, and to prove how ridiculous this comparison is - their Endowment is $89 million.
Our will soon cross the $2 billion mark.
We ARE being treated like a flagship
2 Likes
Not when you compare our endowment to UT’s and aTm’s.
Not close.
Until we are, we are NOT our state’s public flagship or co-flagship. No one except you would think so.
Now compare our $2 billion Endowment to the likes of LSU and Alabama.
We smoke them
Yet both are bigger destination schools, AS I SAID, PRECISELY BECAUSE they are their particular STATE’S…FLAGSHIP publics.
We aren’t, and will likely never be, unless we get a share of the PUF (which isn’t happening).
Doesn’t matter that our endowments beat theirs. They are their state’s flagship publics, and we AREN’T, and will never be.
Our endowment may be greater than that of many other state’s public flagships. That’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is being a state’s public flagship, regardless of endowment.
As YOUR examples (Bama, Ole Miss, etc) PROVE…being a state’s public flagship automatically gives your school a better chance of being a destination school than being a state’s public non-flagship, like UH, regardless of comparative endowments.
I agree A&M in any power conf will draw like they do now but even if they were in the AAC they’d start to have a big decline in attendance especially if they were like us and only in a major conf 20 yrs or less then relegated with no hope for yrs. Its tough to really judge bc like said they were always in a major and built a brand decades going vs us.
They are treating us , tech and even Texas st as the ones which are being elevated by the recent funding. UH and Tech esp. bc the added p4 conf brand. Texas st has the conf affiliation holding them back like it did us.
I believe you are referring to North Texas State. Different school from Texas State.
I think both got the funding with us and tech.