But you just illustrated my point. Football is a net loss for the majority of universities. Football is all in all....very unimportant. Who wins or loses on any given Saturday doesn't mean jack to the progress of society. So if football is a money drain, why keep it around? Universities pour millions of dollars into their athletic programs because it increases opportunities for universities. -Conference's are a key factor in dictating faculty pay, a key component of attracting, and retaining quality faculty members. -Conference alignment affects the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in research money. -Gametime airtime helps university visibility for prospective students, and companies. -Strong relationships form between advertisers and the universities that they advertise with. -Conference alignment opens teams to not only recruiting in certain areas, but also exposure to students there as well. You said it yourself. Football isn't making money for schools...it's making money for the TV networks. Creating VIP super conferences will strip legitimate institutions of exposure, and millions of dollars worth of research money. Money flow will start to be dictated to play on the football field, not contributions from the university. How is that a good thing? THAT is a net loss for everyone involved. Looking at this exclusively from a football standpoint is doing a great injustice to the institutions who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on programs and facilities, and the students and alumni who do and will study there.
So there aren't legitimate institutions that aren't in BCS conferences then? I mean you don't want Super Conferences, yet you cite how current tv deals are so important to other parts of the Universities currently involved. Where's the crying for mid-major schools who will likely never get that opportunity to improve their academics through athletic exposure. Unless you don't consider those mid-majors as legitimate institutions, should there not be some crying foul for them as it stands?
I think you're really reaching on the effects that conferences have on faculties and research. The effects of the conference is primarily a football effect. And the football effect of a mid to bottom tier team is minimal. College football as a whole would be better off with mega conferences simply b/c more good teams who do matter on the football landscape would have a legit chance to compete. Whether or not Iowa State is part of the Big 12 has zero impact on and no importance for the vast majority of college football fans.
Maybe because Jerruh wills it? http://www.sbnation.com/2010/6/17/1522733/arkansas-big-12-jerry-jones Arkansas has long felt slighted in the SEC. While it's true the conference is very lucrative their national profile has dropped. I can remember the Arkansas football teams of the 80s and basketball teams of the 90s ... now neither one is all that highly regarded. And it makes sense from a geographic location. They can have rivalries with both Missouri and Texas A&M, as they have in years past.
I suppose that it is moot now, and not to get into the veracity of the claim, but US News is not the arbiter of Academic excellence used by the decision makers at these universities. AAU membership, research grant money, etc. is what these Universities look at. In my book SEC has several excellent academic institutions that I would send my kids to. Heck, I would probably send my kids to any university that would give my kids a scholarship, so I am also not really the person to determine the best school either
US News rankings are useful for people to make themselves feel good about the institution they are in and for people to brag about how much better their institution is compared to yours. That is about it.
Here are the Forbes rankings: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/94/opinions_college08_Americas-Best-Colleges_Rank.html On a quick perusal it seemed to me that the SEC schools were generally ranked higher than the Big 12 schools. I don't know of any other academic ranking lists. You may be claiming that no ranking is worthwhile, but that's not really the point. The initial comment implied that the Big 12 schools felt that the SEC was inferior academically. I see no basis for that belief.
