AndrewMartin
- 65 comments
- 3 likes given
- 21 likes received
Bio not provided
I wonder why some at Maryland and the ACC feel like Maryland's decision was secretive and not transparent, but their additions of Pitt and Syracuse out of the blue was not? Sounds like the "kettle is black" to me and very hypocritical.
@ghall5517 @TEXAGEAGLE Texas Tech was part of the PAC expansion too, Utah would have been left out. In my opinion, all these teams would be gone if A&M would have agreed.
Yes, I really believe that. They just pulled the biggest blindside in expansion and they want all to believe they are being truthful now. Like in the show Survivor, once the blindside happened, all bets are off the table and trust is all gone. It's every conference for themselves now and everyone should be all hands on deck before there isn't anything to fight for!
Don't believe a word Delaney says about being "inactive". The realignment game is at full tilt. If you remember watching Survivor years ago, once the unexpected blindsides occurred everyone became paranoid and lacked trust. Well, the Maryland and Rutgers blindside by the Big Ten did just that to everyone. The public was aware of Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Missouri. The public won't be aware except by mistake anymore. Can anyone figure out why the SEC Network has been so quiet recently?
Seems like recent history says the SEC leads making an expansion move before the Big 10. The SEC moved to 12 and 14 teams first. Now that the Big 10 mouthpieces are publically stating more expansion is coming and it likely includes demographically favorable Sun Belt properties in the SEC's backyard, I would think the SEC makes its move immediately. This is a war for long term market leadership and no one can just sit out with the strategy of letting others determine its future. I see major moves by both the SEC and Big 10 and when it happens it will end the ACC as we know it and place the Big XII and Pac 12 into almost a tier 2 status unless they merge.
I think it's important to add to this article that he was the Outland Trophy winner. He is an excellent player that will do well in the NFL. Too bad he won't be around for next years title run though.
It would seem to me that this means Alabama starts next year at #1 and both Georgia and Texas A&M will be ranked in the top 5. If so, this will be another strong SEC start. I see Oregon, Stanford, and Ohio State making a run towards the top too.
Congrats to the Aggies beating the Sooners! The Wronghorns in Austin are running away from facing the Aggies, but for the moment the Aggies have to be laughing at them. They killed Oklahoma while Texas got whipped by Oklahoma AND the Aggies are out recruiting them to boot!
@Roggespierre This is the link I used: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11313/tables/tab27.xls
I meant the US Science Foundation not US Department of Education.
@SouthernBoiSB Sorry, there is no AAU ranking per say. It is basically pass / fail. You are either a member or not. The ranking I provided is for the amount of research expenditures by individual school which is a key barometer for making the case to be or become an AAU school. The research expenditures are provided by the US Department of Education.
I think the AAU designation is important, but AAU membership doesn't appear completely objective and is sort of a private club. Looking at the latest research expenditures by institution, here are the rankings for the most discussed expansion targets and if they are part of the coveted AAU: #7 Duke (AAU), #19 UNC (AAU), #22 Pittsburgh (AAU), #22 GA Tech (AAU), #44 VA Tech, #47 NCST, #73 VA (AAU), #95 FSU, and #100 Clemson. UConn, BC, Syracuse, Miami, and Notre Dame are not ranked in the top 100 and are not likely to join that fraternity in near term. Wake Forest is ranked in the top 100, but not considered viable for SEC or Big 10 expansion. For comparison purposes, several current or future Big 10 members expenditure research rankings that already have an AAU designation are ranked similar to or lower than many expansion targets without the AAU designation: #41 MD (AAU), #50 MI State (AAU), #54 Rutgers (AAU), # 61 Iowa (AAU). In addition, NE lost its AAU status recently and is ranked #51 in research expenditures. Seems like the AAU needs more reviews to correct its membership and reflect today's leaders in academic research. As far as SEC schools, Texas A&M University (AAU) had the highest ranking at #20. Florida, Vanderbilt and Missouri also have the AAU designation.
@Big Bob Marley The SEC should insist that both UNC and NCST come to the SEC. UNC will not go to Big Ten and leave NCST hanging. The NC regents have a fiduciary responsibility to choose what is best for both schools and the Big Ten will not take both. Game theory says both or nothing for the SEC and then the SEC has even more control for future expansion by getting them both. The Big Ten will then take Duke.
If you are going to cut, it wouldn't be MO. Too big of a market, AAU school, etc. SEC should cut one of the Mississippi schools.
@vp19 @JansonRoberts I don't understand the entire logic here. It is ok for ND to compete and associate with institutions and conferences athletically, but can't do it academically? I am not aware of any schools that are compelled by the AAU to conduct research against their wishes. They can pick and choose what to work and participate on. Heck, BYU makes many choices in the name of religion, but still is a major university. Aren't there many schools that may meet the AAU membership criteria, like ND, that have not pursued it? Maybe those schools would have some forgiveness by the Big Ten if they meet their other objectives?
@JansonRoberts Except that the Big Ten has publicly stated for over a decade they would take a non-AAU school: Notre Dame. This says there are some circumstances the Big Ten isn't being totally honest. Also, the Big Ten knew that Nebraska's AAU membership was being reviewed and likely was going to be out of the AAU. In fact, more than one of their Big Ten brothers voted to oust NE from the AAU. The SEC should take note that the Big Ten does not require AAU membership and who else would they make an exception for?
@dafreshness318 The SEC settling for NCST and VT while losing NC, VA, and Duke is a disaster. Do you really believe the SEC is going to take the scraps and orphans? They should only allow the tag alongs IF they get the prizes. This smells like a Big Ten fan posting. Are you Jim Delaney?
@Quidam65 @JRsec @JansonRoberts sorry, but this scenario would work just the opposite. The SEC has much more leverage than the PAC with regards to realignment. I really don't think the SEC would take any teams from the Big XII besides Texas and / or Oklahoma.
There is a comment claiming that Texas Tech receives part of the Permanent University Fund from the State of Texas. That is incorrect. The state constitution and the board of regents at Texas A&M and Texas University control the fund. State law prohibits the use of these funds at any other public university.
@vp19 @Transic The SEC only gets UNC by insisting on the package deal. SEC should not accept NCST alone. The Big Ten and maybe UNC would like UNC to Big Ten and NCST to SEC. That solves the problem of a good landing for the state of NC. Big Ten never takes NCST. Therefore, SEC says both must come and in state politics brings both programs to SEC. The Big Ten then takes Duke. This is best scenario for SEC and the right way to play poker here. For this to work, SEC needs to have the fortitude to walk away though, which will be hard!