For the sake of Utah, Oregon, Washington, Oregon State and Washington State I hope they can find a way to make the Pac 12 work. Colorado? Rot in hell buttaoles.

baylorrific said:

---

Baylor is (a) in Texas and (b) while a superior and improving academic institution, is not (yet) Stanford or Rice in terms of academics (not really even close yet) - Baylor undeniably benefits from strong athletics and undeniably suffers from poor athletics.

---

How is it "undeniable" though? Because the enrollment has gone up? Can you really attribute increased student enrollment directly to sports? Would Baylor be able to increase enrollment playing a lower level of sports? There's no way to be certain either way.

Anyway, whatever reasons you would give for it being "undeniable" are also probably true for Stanford. Even if their academics are top 3 in the country.

wongobear said:

---

baylorrific said:

---

Baylor is (a) in Texas and (b) while a superior and improving academic institution, is not (yet) Stanford or Rice in terms of academics (not really even close yet) - Baylor undeniably benefits from strong athletics and undeniably suffers from poor athletics.

---

How is it "undeniable" though? Because the enrollment has gone up? Can you really attribute increased student enrollment directly to sports? Would Baylor be able to increase enrollment playing a lower level of sports? There's no way to be certain either way.

Anyway, whatever reasons you would give for it being "undeniable" are also probably true for Stanford. Even if their academics are top 3 in the country.

---

Just graph Baylor's rise in sports with the application rate. You might stop and think it's just a coincidence. If so, then go talk to students. It's dead obvious that the two are related.

Any school what is more into social justice and politics than sports is a no go for the Big 12. That pretty much excludes any team on the West Coast, and maybe even the 4 corner schools.

Look at number of applications in 2005 and look at number of applications after RGIII won the Heisman. Massive jump. Also helped some upper echelon students who wanted big time sports decide to attend over Texas.

Stanford is on par with Harvard/MIT/Oxford. Global name known for top academics and research. Baylor less so(improving though!). I went to Baylor coming from Tennessee and had to tell most people where it was. And once they heard Waco they just wanted to talk about the Branch Dividians.

Baylor has a very solid Texas reputation. When sports started cooking and kids from all over the country started attending, the reputation expanded. When I say Baylor now it's "good school. That's in Texas right?"

dstaylor57 said:

---

Any school what is more into social justice and politics than sports is a no go for the Big 12. That pretty much excludes any team on the West Coast, and maybe even the 4 corner schools.

---

Baylor certainly qualifies for more interest in politics than sports. There are 466,492 posts on the R&P wack form than the 454,788 posts on the Football forum.

The only difference between Berkley and Baylor is ALT-Left and ALT-Right crew.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

dstaylor57 said:

---

Any school what is more into social justice and politics than sports is a no go for the Big 12. That pretty much excludes any team on the West Coast, and maybe even the 4 corner schools.

---

Baylor certainly qualifies for more interest in politics than sports. There are 466,492 posts on the R&P wack form than the 454,788 posts on the Football forum.

The only difference between Berkley and Baylor is ALT-Left and ALT-Right crew.

---

That could be that when people try to post on the SicEm Football forum the reigning Cabal makes the experience so miserable it is not worth trying to have a discussion.

The R&P whack board allows for differing opinions. The R&P whack board is more open minded than the Baylor Sports boards!

Let's cut to the chase:

Baylor needs high level revenue sports more than universities like Stanford, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Tulane because Baylor leverages its performance in those sports as a major, if not primary, marketing too for attracting undergraduate students. It's no secret that Baylor's acceptance rate is around 40% while the acceptance rate for those 4 is under 10% in each instance and that's not even going into the fact that over 50% of the incoming freshmen class are Texas residents.

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

dstaylor57 said:

---

Any school what is more into social justice and politics than sports is a no go for the Big 12. That pretty much excludes any team on the West Coast, and maybe even the 4 corner schools.

---

Baylor certainly qualifies for more interest in politics than sports. There are 466,492 posts on the R&P wack form than the 454,788 posts on the Football forum.

The only difference between Berkley and Baylor is ALT-Left and ALT-Right crew.

---

That could be that when people try to post on the SicEm Football forum the reigning Cabal makes the experience so miserable it is not worth trying to have a discussion.

The R&P whack board allows for differing opinions. The R&P whack board is more open minded than the Baylor Sports boards!

---

Don't know about that. Most people who don't buy into the echo chamber have left. Their opinions are not wanted. Very little religion over there now, too. The truly nut jobs over there are few and far between now, however. I'm not convinced that a very few didn't get caught up in the Jan 6 net. There were some who talked over there prior to being ready to grab and go. Those posters aren't there anymore. Unless you buy into that type of stuff, best to just stay away. That's why I hate to see some of it filter over to this board.

Edmond Bear said:

---

wongobear said:

---

baylorrific said:

---

Baylor is (a) in Texas and (b) while a superior and improving academic institution, is not (yet) Stanford or Rice in terms of academics (not really even close yet) - Baylor undeniably benefits from strong athletics and undeniably suffers from poor athletics.

---

How is it "undeniable" though? Because the enrollment has gone up? Can you really attribute increased student enrollment directly to sports? Would Baylor be able to increase enrollment playing a lower level of sports? There's no way to be certain either way.

Anyway, whatever reasons you would give for it being "undeniable" are also probably true for Stanford. Even if their academics are top 3 in the country.

---

Just graph Baylor's rise in sports with the application rate. You might stop and think it's just a coincidence. If so, then go talk to students. It's dead obvious that the two are related.

---

Ask anyone that knows and they will tell you sports (and winning in sports) has a high correlation with applications.

Its one of the best marketing expenses a college can engage in.

And its why the academic side of our universities tolerates sports.

boykin_spaniel said:

---

Look at number of applications in 2005 and look at number of applications after RGIII won the Heisman. Massive jump. Also helped some upper echelon students who wanted big time sports decide to attend over Texas.

---

I believe you, but is such data even available publicly?

blackie said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

dstaylor57 said:

---

Any school what is more into social justice and politics than sports is a no go for the Big 12. That pretty much excludes any team on the West Coast, and maybe even the 4 corner schools.

---

Baylor certainly qualifies for more interest in politics than sports. There are 466,492 posts on the R&P wack form than the 454,788 posts on the Football forum.

The only difference between Berkley and Baylor is ALT-Left and ALT-Right crew.

---

That could be that when people try to post on the SicEm Football forum the reigning Cabal makes the experience so miserable it is not worth trying to have a discussion.

The R&P whack board allows for differing opinions. The R&P whack board is more open minded than the Baylor Sports boards!

---

Don't know about that. Most people who don't buy into the echo chamber have left. Their opinions are not wanted. Very little religion over there now, too. The truly nut jobs over there are few and far between now, however. I'm not convinced that a very few didn't get caught up in the Jan 6 net. There were some who talked over there prior to being ready to grab and go. Those posters aren't there anymore. Unless you buy into that type of stuff, best to just stay away. That's why I hate to see some of it filter over to this board.

---

Your probably right! Matter of perspective. I just happen to say some things the football cabal doesn't like or look at differently. It is all relative.

Don't worry, I admit when I am being petty and self-absorbed... Just wish others would too... : )

A 2022 report said we had a record number of applicants for fall 2022 of around 51,000, which is a year over year gain of 13%.

Quote:

---

Why waste a day sitting in a concrete stadium?

---

I've been asking myself why I do this for several years now.

My undergrad alma mater (Boston U.) has no football team and no baseball team...and underperforming D1 teams in other sports (minus crew and ice hockey)...yet they had >65,000 applications for a school that has the same size undergrad population...so sports and their performance do not always correlate to applicants.

Wicked_Wombat said:

---

My undergrad alma mater (Boston U.) has no football team and no baseball team...and underperforming D1 teams in other sports (minus crew and ice hockey)...yet they had >65,000 applications for a school that has the same size undergrad population...so sports and their performance do not always correlate to applicants.

---

Yes, and that is also true of the University of Chicago and the Ivy league schools as well.

But does that disprove the data that shows that college sports also helps boost applications and enrollment for other universities?

Do you think Baylor should drop out of the Big 12 and go the route of Boston U?

Utah seems like the most obvious addition. On the subject of culture - worrying about a team's cultural fit is a commodity that we cannot currently afford. I think you have to make a sales pitch to some combination of PAC 12 schools and hope that they say yes. We are in a decent spot right now, but we need to further solidify for when the ACC implodes

wongobear said:

---

boykin_spaniel said:

---

Look at number of applications in 2005 and look at number of applications after RGIII won the Heisman. Massive jump. Also helped some upper echelon students who wanted big time sports decide to attend over Texas.

---

I believe you, but is such data even available publicly?

---

Every university that receives federal funding is required to provide "Common Set" data in their reporting. Here is a link to Baylor 2021 - https://www.baylor.edu/ir/doc.php/391534.pdf

Feel free to look up other years and throw it in a spreadsheet.

I would like to see the P12 hold together. I think SDSU would be a good option for them.

This coast-to-coast conference membership may be good on paper or for TV contracts but I think its bad for fans and does nothing to help build new rivalries. It will be fun watching the tens of USC fans show up @ Rutgers.

Every time we add a program from more than 1 state away, that's one more away game that i'll never see in person.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Wicked_Wombat said:

---

My undergrad alma mater (Boston U.) has no football team and no baseball team...and underperforming D1 teams in other sports (minus crew and ice hockey)...yet they had >65,000 applications for a school that has the same size undergrad population...so sports and their performance do not always correlate to applicants.

---

Do you think Baylor should drop out of the Big 12 and go the route of Boston U?

---

if someone is applying to a college not for their best educational fit but because a team is good, they need to rethink their priorities or get slapped. Probably both.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

The only difference between Berkley and Baylor is ALT-Left and ALT-Right crew.

---

Baylor isn't even close to Berkeley when it comes to academic reputation / prestige.

Also, it is Berkeley - not Berkley.

montypython said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Wicked_Wombat said:

---

My undergrad alma mater (Boston U.) has no football team and no baseball team...and underperforming D1 teams in other sports (minus crew and ice hockey)...yet they had >65,000 applications for a school that has the same size undergrad population...so sports and their performance do not always correlate to applicants.

---

Do you think Baylor should drop out of the Big 12 and go the route of Boston U?

---

if someone is applying to a college not for their best educational fit but because a team is good, they need to rethink their priorities or get slapped. Probably both.

---

Curious if you have or recently had any college age kids. Because sports is actually a pretty significant factor that college counselors tease out in terms of fit. College focus is way more experiential than it used to be.

Sports doesn't matter to all kids, but it's critical to some. I have a friend who's son got into MIT and he ended up going to Duke basically because he wanted the real college sports experience.

And to be fair, if your best fit is, for example, Southwestern, but you really want big time D1 sports and go to Baylor, your life probably isn't going to turnout much differently. If someone got into Harvard, and end up going to Tech just because sports, then I agree that kid is a moron. And are probably not a human that exists.

I can't tell you how many people I've known that went to LSU and Bama in large part because of their football programs. Bama would probably bulldoze their library if it meant winning another national championship

montypython said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Wicked_Wombat said:

---

My undergrad alma mater (Boston U.) has no football team and no baseball team...and underperforming D1 teams in other sports (minus crew and ice hockey)...yet they had >65,000 applications for a school that has the same size undergrad population...so sports and their performance do not always correlate to applicants.

---

Do you think Baylor should drop out of the Big 12 and go the route of Boston U?

---

if someone is applying to a college not for their best educational fit but because a team is good, they need to rethink their priorities or get slapped. Probably both.

---

I hope you don't trip and fall when you come down out of your ivory tower. Educational Fit can be found at many places. So, there are options. Most kids want "the college experience" and sports is a part of it along with the degree program they want.

Edmond Bear said:

---

montypython said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Wicked_Wombat said:

---

My undergrad alma mater (Boston U.) has no football team and no baseball team...and underperforming D1 teams in other sports (minus crew and ice hockey)...yet they had >65,000 applications for a school that has the same size undergrad population...so sports and their performance do not always correlate to applicants.

---

Do you think Baylor should drop out of the Big 12 and go the route of Boston U?

---

if someone is applying to a college not for their best educational fit but because a team is good, they need to rethink their priorities or get slapped. Probably both.

---

I hope you don't trip and fall when you come down out of your ivory tower. Educational Fit can be found at many places. So, there are options. Most kids want "the college experience" and sports is a part of it along with the degree program they want.

---

I know my son left a Academy Appointment because he could not do what he wanted to there.

He chose A&M's program because it also gave him a real College experience. He could have gone to a couple of highly rated schools, but he was not interested in a small Academy setting. Now that he is graduated he values his ring dunk, the SEC sports and the notoriety of a major University. Definitely glad he did not go the non-traditional route. Plays into a lot of decisions.

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I think that's where the perception of arrogance comes in: they don't see themselves as subordinate to the Big 12. They may not see it but it's pretty clear that they are. They are unwilling to admit what is blatantly obvious to most other observers, & has been for a few years. The comparative media deals are the latest illustration. We have one, they don't & are unlikely to get anything close to what we have.

historian said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I think that's where the perception of arrogance comes in: they don't see themselves as subordinate to the Big 12. They may not see it but it's pretty clear that they are. They are unwilling to admit what is blatantly obvious to most other observers, & has been for a few years. The comparative media deals are the latest illustration. We have one, they don't & are unlikely to get anything close to what we have.

---

Let's see what actually happens. The PAC did better than most expected this year on the field. I am not sure they are using the same metrics in determining viability or position. They may not get a TV deal as good, but I suspect they are looking at a more diverse revenue stream than the B12. No one has left yet and the Conference is still there after much talk on how bad they are.

RMF5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I think that's where the perception of arrogance comes in: they don't see themselves as subordinate to the Big 12. They may not see it but it's pretty clear that they are. They are unwilling to admit what is blatantly obvious to most other observers, & has been for a few years. The comparative media deals are the latest illustration. We have one, they don't & are unlikely to get anything close to what we have.

---

Let's see what actually happens. The PAC did better than most expected this year on the field. I am not sure they are using the same metrics in determining viability or position. They may not get a TV deal as good, but I suspect they are looking at a more diverse revenue stream than the B12. No one has left yet and the Conference is still there after much talk on how bad they are.

---

yup! As much fun as conference realignment is, i dont see that PAC breaking up, nor do i realistically see any west coast schools coming to the big 12.. way too haughty. If the big 12 is eyeing expansion, they need to be patient and try to absorb Louisville, Pitt, Va Tech, NC State and GA Tech. Outside of BYU, that would create a great conference area.

Bear2014 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I think that's where the perception of arrogance comes in: they don't see themselves as subordinate to the Big 12. They may not see it but it's pretty clear that they are. They are unwilling to admit what is blatantly obvious to most other observers, & has been for a few years. The comparative media deals are the latest illustration. We have one, they don't & are unlikely to get anything close to what we have.

---

Let's see what actually happens. The PAC did better than most expected this year on the field. I am not sure they are using the same metrics in determining viability or position. They may not get a TV deal as good, but I suspect they are looking at a more diverse revenue stream than the B12. No one has left yet and the Conference is still there after much talk on how bad they are.

---

yup! As much fun as conference realignment is, i dont see that PAC breaking up, nor do i realistically see any west coast schools coming to the big 12.. way too haughty. If the big 12 is eyeing expansion, they need to be patient and try to absorb Louisville, Pitt, Va Tech, NC State and GA Tech. Outside of BYU, that would create a great conference area.

---

Not only that, but none will go anywhere until they're sure the Big 10 well is dry. With LA going to the Big 10, that conference standing still for the moment and a general haughtiness when it comes to the Big 12 rooted in (now ancient) history, I don't think Pac-12 schools are doing anything broadly until the Big 10's next expansion round.

At that point, the left-behind programs will make a decision to regroup or leave. But it sure seems like the Pac-12 broadly still thinks it has a few dangerous cards up its sleeve. Which I think it's plain to see they really don't.

Bear2014 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I think that's where the perception of arrogance comes in: they don't see themselves as subordinate to the Big 12. They may not see it but it's pretty clear that they are. They are unwilling to admit what is blatantly obvious to most other observers, & has been for a few years. The comparative media deals are the latest illustration. We have one, they don't & are unlikely to get anything close to what we have.

---

Let's see what actually happens. The PAC did better than most expected this year on the field. I am not sure they are using the same metrics in determining viability or position. They may not get a TV deal as good, but I suspect they are looking at a more diverse revenue stream than the B12. No one has left yet and the Conference is still there after much talk on how bad they are.

---

yup! As much fun as conference realignment is, i dont see that PAC breaking up, nor do i realistically see any west coast schools coming to the big 12.. way too haughty. If the big 12 is eyeing expansion, they need to be patient and try to absorb Louisville, Pitt, Va Tech, NC State and GA Tech. Outside of BYU, that would create a great conference area.

---

I know the SEC and B10 have visions of an NFL version 32 team league, even told by a Coach it was a done deal. Yet, some things just nag at me and don't seem to be falling into place.

PAC - Listen to the "insiders" on here and the PAC is dead-man walking and the schools frantic to determine the future. Yet, UCLA/USC have left and the other schools don't seem to be trembling. They are talking of adding with Oregon and Wash still there. The TV deal was supposed to be so bad that the 4 corners will come running to B12, not happening yet. No one talks about the potential of the streaming and how that plays out. Finally, the PAC just doesn't seem to care for the B12 and I can't see any leaving for the B12 which they view as just as fragile.

ACC - The ACC deal is horrible and everyone is just counting down until they can bolt. Yet, Tobacco Road says it is not coming apart for anything. Clemson and FSU are bolting? Still there and talking up the ACC. But, we will have to wait until 2033 to let this play out???? That is 10 years. In the last 10 years we have gone from BCS, 2 team playoff, 4 team playoff to now a 12 team playoff. You think things are sitting pat for 10 years?

B12 - We were dead last year. Then we were the Conference of the future. Now, we are cutting deals to get rid of UT/OU at a discount. People are talking about buyers regret for schools that have not even gotten here yet. And the TV deal was not as big as projected, correct?

Point being, nobody (including TV people) know **** until it happens. This is all talk. I bet the total PAC package, including streaming and other revenue, exceeds B12 when all is said and done. I also think we have a better shot at 4 16 team Conferences than 2 16. If I am wrong, be the first to say it. No proof, just feeling watching the cards come into place.

The Big 10 expanded and got their big media deal. Something tells me they won't poach again for years, and I think Washington and Oregon know it.

LagunaBear said:

---

The Big 10 expanded and got their big media deal. Something tells me they won't poach again for years, and I think Washington and Oregon know it.

---

I am with you. I know in Tampa they are reporting SMU to the PAC is a positive for USF to get to the B12. Without the top 4 teams, USF might stand a chance of winning a title.

The only other news today was the UT/OU deal giving Clemson and FSU an idea on how to leave early. Although neither said they are trying. Slow news day

LagunaBear said:

---

The Big 10 expanded and got their big media deal. Something tells me they won't poach again for years, and I think Washington and Oregon know it.

---

I agree with you, I just think we're drawing different conclusions from that fact. I genuinely don't think the Pac-12 will have any defections until the Big 10 moves again, which is going to be a while. Nobody wants to jeopardize that meal ticket, no matter how remote the possibility.

The value of staying course will outweigh the value of leaving for TV revenue in the Big 12 which isn't going to be nearly enough to justify the cost of moving. The Pac-12 is going to end up signing a streaming deal with Amazon or ESPN+ that'll put them within $5-10 million/team of the Big 12 either way. No university is putting their athletic department through the anguish of a realignment for a slight pay bump that won't significantly impact your ability to do more than you already are.

The only reason Pac-12 teams were rumored to be interested in the Big 12 in the first place was because the league was in perceived danger of falling apart, not because they were eager to jump at Big 12 money. Nobody's leaving until the Big 10 takes their next WC teams, if they ever do, and at that point it'll be a free-for-all.

parch said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

The Big 10 expanded and got their big media deal. Something tells me they won't poach again for years, and I think Washington and Oregon know it.

---

I agree with you, I just think we're drawing different conclusions from that fact. I genuinely don't think the Pac-12 will have any defections until the Big 10 moves again, which is going to be a while. Nobody wants to jeopardize that meal ticket, no matter how remote the possibility.

The value of staying course will outweigh the value of leaving for TV revenue in the Big 12 which isn't going to be nearly enough to justify the cost of moving. The Pac-12 is going to end up signing a streaming deal with Amazon or ESPN+ that'll put them within $5-10 million/team of the Big 12 either way. No university is putting their athletic department through the anguish of a realignment for a slight pay bump that won't significantly impact your ability to do more than you already are.

The only reason Pac-12 teams were rumored to be interested in the Big 12 in the first place was because the league was in perceived danger of falling apart, not because they were eager to jump at Big 12 money. Nobody's leaving until the Big 10 takes their next WC teams, if they ever do, and at that point it'll be a free-for-all.

---

I tend to agree. And I think most of those teams don't really want to leave. It that's accurate and if I'm Kliavkov (sp?) I'm working on a plan that allows playoff teams to keep most or all of their playoff related revenue money, which likely results in Washington or Oregon to making pretty big money almost every year.

Who knows? So many rumors right now.

montypython said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

The only difference between Berkley and Baylor is ALT-Left and ALT-Right crew.

---

Baylor isn't even close to Berkeley when it comes to academic reputation / prestige.

Also, it is Berkeley - not Berkley.

---

I've always longed for the prestige of being able to expound on the plethora of meanings of "is."