<p>While Austin has technically outgrown the college town size, the core of the city is not really much different than it was when it was known just as a college/capital town. The funky Tex-Mex joints and clubs, 6th Street, S. Congress and the Drag are still right out of the 70’s. Downtown Austin is still more Madison than Dallas. The soul of Austin is still firmly stuck in the 70’s. Most of the growth is outside the old Austin core area and hardly really a part of the city–just faceless suburbs.</p>
<p>
Iowa City is a great college town, once you learn more about it ( or those who would resist to hang there for a football game) your lack of knowledge should likely improve. Besides football, or sports in general Iowa City attract Texans and other citizens for many events etc…</p>
<p>Pac-10 is moving forward. I hope Colorado gets it over Baylor. The Texas legislature wanted that Baylor stepchild to join the Big XII when it was formed. Talk about nanny government. LOL!</p>
<p>[Orangebloods.com</a> - Pac-10 ready to make moves; Nebraska’s decision is key](<a href=“http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1091537]Orangebloods.com”>http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1091537)</p>
<p>There can only be one Bear team in the Pac-10.</p>
<p>ND vs. Michigan game was crazy last year. Looking forward to this years football season. I would like to see ND in the Big 10 though. Its an academic and football powerhouse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So much for the “academic standards” of the Pac10, huh.</p>
<p>Texas divied up by 3 schools wouldn’t be worth it financially for the B10; 4 schools would be a drag financially.</p>
<p>As for Iowa City, from what I hear, it’s a pretty fun college town (even if it does have the most annoying fans in the B10).</p>
<p>Alex,
Maybe you don’t have access in Dubai to a map of the USA, but the distances from U Texas to nearly all of the Big 10/Pacific 10 schools is a looooooong way. By contrast, many of the SEC schools are relatively close. Changing to the Big 10/Pacific 10 would be a big increase in travel distance/time for the athletic teams and the student athletes of U Texas. I hope that the college presidents are truly considering the direct impact on the student-athlete and not being seduced by the money only. But I’m probably being na</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i don’t think there’s any inconsistency since Colorado and Baylor are better than Oregon State/Washington State</p>
<p>Pac 10 invited Texas, TA&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, and Colorado.</p>
<p>Wow. What if they all say yes?</p>
<p>It would be tough for me to see them all saying yes, as a school like Texas has very little to gain from a switch to the Pac-10 as compared to a switch to the Big Ten. The Big Ten offers a fantastic academic network through the Committee on Institutional Cooperation and a lucrative TV deal, while the Pac-10 is stuck in a crappy TV deal because of their poor time slots and doesn’t offer any sort of academic network that I’m aware of.</p>
<p>A school like Colorado might find the switch reasonable and advantageous, but I don’t see why a school like Texas would.</p>
<p>
Academics are secondary to this decison. It’s going to come down to money. Texas would probably be financially successful with a TV station of their own in their home state…however, they have to weigh that against adding addtional media markets the Pac-10/Texas/Oklahoma/Colorado bring to the table…those include some huge TV markets which command a premium when launching a TV station. </p>
<p>Besides, I don’t think Texas would feel too bad joining a conference that includes the likes of Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC and Washington.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I know the US pretty well. I flew from Detroit to Austin (direct) several times. It generally took 3 hours. Detroit-Austin is the longest flight any Big 12 team would have to endure if it joined the Big 10. Austin to Gainesville, Athens or Columbia would all take over 2 hours. I agree that on average, SEC schools are closer to Austin, but in every case, those athletes will have to hop onto planes, and the difference in flight time is negligible. As you know, in many cases, getting to the airport, borading, fueling, take off, landing etc… take longer than the actual flight time.</p>
<p>^ but do you have a map over there in Dubai?! What a condescending ______.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The point isn’t their company, its that they get to join an actual network that the teams in the Big Ten have formed academically. Its not that Texas gets to say “We associate ourselves with Michigan!” its that they get to say “We share many resources with Michigan.”</p>
<p>The reason this element is important is because faculty loves it. At Notre Dame, as its been pointed out earlier in this thread, a move to the Big Ten was opposed by all groups other than the faculty, which voted overwhelmingly in favor. And while sports make Texas a lot of money, academics make them quite a bit of money too.</p>
<p>And again, the Big Ten has a much better financial situation than the Pac-10 does, as it already has successfully launched and programmed for its television network, while the Pac-10 is still in the early stages of developing theirs.</p>
<p>Big Ten officials mum on expansion </p>
<p>The Associated Press - PARK RIDGE, Ill.
Published Sunday, June 06, 2010 </p>
<p>The Big Ten did not take formal action during a meeting Sunday about conference expansion, although officials say their timeline may change after the Pac-10 revealed plans for their own expansion.</p>
<p>The 11 school presidents and chancellors along with Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick met for about 4 1/2 hours, and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney said the majority of time was spent on expansion dialogue.</p>
<p>Michigan State President Lou Anna K. Simon emphasized that academics would play a large role in determining what schools would be a good fit to join the Big Ten _ not just athletics.</p>
<p>The Big Ten has been examining possible conference expansion since December.</p>
<p>Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.</p>
<h2>Link: [INFORUM</a> | Fargo, ND](<a href=“http://www.inforum.com/event/apArticle/id/D9G624I80/]INFORUM”>http://www.inforum.com/event/apArticle/id/D9G624I80/)</h2>
<p>^^“The 11 school presidents and chancellors along with Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick met for about 4 1/2 hours” lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s all about the money. Academic alliances are not driving this one bit. The Pac10 plan is smart - creating a new Southwest conference wing (so to speak). If I’m not mistaken, the Pac10 TV contract is up next year. 'Mo money, 'Mo money …</p>
<p>alex,
Geographically, U Texas would see a marked increase in travel costs and travel time with a move to either the Big 10 or Pacific 10. Neither makes for a very appealing prospect for student-athletes for U Texas and the others, particularly when you consider traditional opponents are so much closer. The SEC is certainly closer, but still a longer trip than the current arrangement. </p>
<p>My concern is the student-athlete and the fans. I still think that the student-athlete is getting the shaft if every time they play an away athletic contest, they have to get on a plane and fly for several hours and risk getting trapped in regions that have much iffier travel weather. I also think that the fan bases will lose interest, eg, they care about U Texas vs Texas Tech. Would they care about U Texas vs Indiana U or U Minnesota or Washington State or Oregon State or….? </p>
<p>For the travel difference, think about the upcoming 2010 season. The Longhorns have away football games at Rice (Houston), Texas Tech (Lubbock), Oklahoma (in Dallas), Nebraska (Lincoln), and Kansas State (Manhattan, KS). These are all closer than any opponent in the Big 10 and most of the Pacific 10. Consider a sport like basketball (men and women) which has lots more contests and the difference really begins to add up. Add in the non-revenue sports and all of this travel becomes a burden for the student-athlete and the fans who follow those teams. </p>
<p>Maybe I lack the imagination to see the benefits, but I truly wonder what U Texas and the others get for all of this. I hope that they keep it as it is. There is more to life than money….</p>
<p>“It’s all about the money. Academic alliances are not driving this one bit.”</p>
<p>ctyankee, I disagree. Academics will play a major role in this decision, as will potential for future success on the field (recruitment etc…). Money is, of course, the main driver. But academics will play a role.</p>
<p>
Would they care about U Texas vs OSU or U Texas vs Michigan or U Texas vs USC?</p>
<p>ucb,
I think you’re comparing apples and oranges. I chose Texas Tech deliberately because it is not the marquee game for U Texas. Clearly the contests against Texas A&M and U Oklahoma are much bigger rivalries.</p>
<p>^ The point is, every season and every team has its non-marquee matchups…and signature rivalry games. </p>
<p>I get your point about the travel…that’s def something schools will have to consider.</p>