Academics is just one factor in conferences being assembled. Others, and some factors more profoundly, include compatabilities in terms of proximity and location, size, facilities, sponsoring of sports, tradition and history, marketing, control, institutional type, availability, politics, and of course, revenue.
The Ivy League has a high academic base and the academic consortium evolved from the Big10 association.

The USN&WR can be flawed. One instance, for example, that was mentioned in prior years, was that the magazine had one University's department ranked very highly for a particular field. Ironically, this particular selective school did not even sponsor a department or major for the field. And, despite one medical school's major mistakes and certain instances of incompetence that got press, this favorite of USN&WR landed top ten rankings over and over.
Other schools can appear in a top tier category one year, and be totally displaced the next. The USN&WR is not completely objective and their scientific method possesses many flaws.
It is attractive reading for prospective students and parents searching for which schools they may seek to apply. It is a popular magazine, not a scientific or scholarly journal.

You will note that I posted to Quinn as a question. I am pretty sure 50ish is the cut off to tier 1 and 120ish is the cutoff to tier 2. If I knew it for a dead fact though, I would have said it as a statement. I had hoped quinn would respond with clarifications as to the boundaries to tier 2. I unfortunately have not gotten to a copy of the ranking to get the info myself. Maybe this afternoon...

------------------------I just got back from the library. from the 2004 guide "Colleges and Universities at the top of their categories are ranked numerically. Others are placed in tiers...."

This hits me as a huge cop out, but I will take the hit. By their ranking system, The top tier of schools ---the numbered national schools --- appears to not be divided into tier 1 & tier 2. But after that you are in tier 3. so go figure.

One would suspect that at one point there was a tier 2. Did they set it at 50? At the first page of their numeric rankings? Halfway through their numeric rankings? hopefully someone has that story.

Hey Dogsnthingys! You bring up several very good points to keep in mind about looking at the member schools in conferences. I don't hink anyone can question that those factors are in play in looking at conferences these days.




I hope I haven't presented it as the end all be all--- that certainly was not my intent. I think it can be looked at as the most popular ranking for college students and in that regard, does carry a lot of influence.

College faculties will look at universities from one perspective and sudents from quite another, but ultimately the perception the public has of your school does mean a lot.

We are in total agreement.




What positive attributes did the MWC (prior to TCU joining) offer BYU? Were those same positive attributes not there in the 16 team WAC? Yeah, but there were negative attributes that BYU and the 7 schools sought to distance from. Why can this never happen again? I am being told repeatedly it can never happen to the Big XII.




And that MAY be true. It may prevent a new conference from forming from the core of the Big XII (possibly in addition to other schools), but frankly, I do not see that as a given. To me the point of debating all of this is to see what UT and OU MIGHT be looking at as an alternate plan. What are the options? Why would they appeal?




Does Michigan or UCLA have a superior attitude? Texas is the UCLA or Michigan of this region. That is just reality. That fact makes them look very closely at where they stand in the region and who they are affiliated with. It lead them to turn their backs on a lot of well regarded private schools regardless of a very storied history. That may lead them to make changes in the future if the Big XII member schools do not meet the criteria UT expects from their conference. I don't know why this has proven so controversial to state --- this is true of every Division 1 school out there!

The Big XII was a marriage of convenience that has worked out pretty well, but marriages do fail. I don't think it is just inconceivable that UT might have taken a look at life after the Big XII...actually, every Division 1 school probably has an idea of what they would do if they needed to change conference affiliations. The idea that UT hasn't imagined life without Nebraska and some of the other schools just seems crazy to me. These Administrators are, among other things, paid to think about this stuff.

One thing I haven't noticed in this thread is the upcoming change in Texas administration. Larry Faulkner, the current UT president has been very vocal about moving Texas up to the top 5 public schools academically. That hasn't happened, but UT has made significant improvements in the last 7 years under Faulkner - including bringing in nearly $2 Billion in academic endowments. The inclinations of the next president will dictate whether UT chooses to maintain the current athletic affiliations, find more academically-oriented partners, or create a new conference (centered on domination and/or money).

In case anyone is interested, here's the job announcement for the UT presidency: http://www.utexas.edu/news/faulkner/search.html

Hey why dont Texas contact the Pac 10 for membership. The Pac 10 is the IVY of the west. Maybe Texas and Rice could come on as a pair.

One idea I came up with some time ago still haunts me, even though I seem to be unique in having come up with it.

What if Texas pulls the "next best 5" out of the big 12 (non-capitalization intended)... and what if USC pulls the same out of the Pac-10?

Oh, the carnage!

I'm not sure it's likely, but it wouldn't surprise me to see that happen.

When the PCC dissolved into the "Big 5," it was the California schools and Washington...while the Oregons and Wazzu participated in the initial talks that became the WAC before returning to the fold within five years...Idaho became a charter member of the Big Sky...

Pardon the previous digression, but does the Big 8+4 have six "institutional" fits to match a "Pac-6?"

Hmmm...

Pac-10: Cal, UCLA, USC, Stanford, Washington and one of the following (in descending order): Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon...

Big 8+4: Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M and...

Perhaps...

"East": Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M and...Texas Tech for the sake of geography? Oklahoma?
"West": Cal, UCLA, Oregon, USC, Stanford, Washington