hiphopfroggy
Active Member
TCU is about to graduate their first M.D. class and soon TCU's research dollars will dwarf anyone without a Medical School.
Big 12 in position to poach Pac 12 schools?
- Thread starter TCU Vagabond
- Start date
TCUdirtbag
Active Member
Really? I missed where we have a booming medical research enterprise.
The potential is there. But we aren’t on pace to “dwarf” anyone.
tcudoc
Full Member
Agree. That will take decades to develop, if it develops at all. Unless they partner with some preexisting entity.
helcap
Full Member
May be able to cut a deal with China
hiphopfroggy
Active Member
lol I didn't say it is booming now and clearly stated TCU is just getting started but if you don't think TCU medical is going to start going after grants and research $ I don't know what to tell you.
Limey Frog
Full Member
I think the only way Pac 12 school leave for the Big 12 this year is if Kliavkoff is truly unable to get a deal on the table. If he promised $400M a year and is currently getting offered below $300M that's pretty bad, but it's hard to imagine anyone leaving the conference over it right now when the difference in payout is going to be maybe $5M annually either way.
The deal-breaker might be Oregon and Washington insisting on unequal post-season sharing and the Arizona school refusing those terms. I don't see anyone leaving over the streaming issue, though if that doesn't work out very well it will absolutely create resentment moving forward. Even if no one is excited about SMU and SDSU, Utah or Arizona isn't going to join a conference with UCF in it just to avoid SMU. The uneven revenue is the only thing big enough to make this all unravel for the Pac right now.
That said, there are many reason to think that the Arizona schools, Utah, and Colorado will make this move by 2030:
1. Worse money and TV visibility under the Pac's (yet unfinished) media deal.
2. Unequal post-season revenue sharing.
3. Oregon and Washington leaving for the Big Ten.
4. SMU and SDSU not improving the conference.
Even the Pac homer John Wilner recently wrote that he thinks the landscape after 20230 will be three major conferences, comprising an expanded Big Ten, SEC, and Big 12. I think that's right. We can be patient, and evidence thus far suggests that our conference has better leadership. Kliavkoff totally screwed up the Pac's opportunity to poach the Big 12 in 2021 and the media rights situation in 2022-23. That's only going to fester with time. Unequal revenue sharing always increases tension, and if SDSU and/or SMU bring sufficient value to offset that they'd have been invited a long time ago.
The deal-breaker might be Oregon and Washington insisting on unequal post-season sharing and the Arizona school refusing those terms. I don't see anyone leaving over the streaming issue, though if that doesn't work out very well it will absolutely create resentment moving forward. Even if no one is excited about SMU and SDSU, Utah or Arizona isn't going to join a conference with UCF in it just to avoid SMU. The uneven revenue is the only thing big enough to make this all unravel for the Pac right now.
That said, there are many reason to think that the Arizona schools, Utah, and Colorado will make this move by 2030:
1. Worse money and TV visibility under the Pac's (yet unfinished) media deal.
2. Unequal post-season revenue sharing.
3. Oregon and Washington leaving for the Big Ten.
4. SMU and SDSU not improving the conference.
Even the Pac homer John Wilner recently wrote that he thinks the landscape after 20230 will be three major conferences, comprising an expanded Big Ten, SEC, and Big 12. I think that's right. We can be patient, and evidence thus far suggests that our conference has better leadership. Kliavkoff totally screwed up the Pac's opportunity to poach the Big 12 in 2021 and the media rights situation in 2022-23. That's only going to fester with time. Unequal revenue sharing always increases tension, and if SDSU and/or SMU bring sufficient value to offset that they'd have been invited a long time ago.
TCUdirtbag
Active Member
You obviously know that’s not what I said. You said our research spending would “soon dwarf” institutions without a medical school.
I guess I could ask you how you define “soon”, but I can’t imagine there’s any reasonable definition that captures the reality of how far we are from “dwarfing anyone without a medical school.”
In 2021, Rice had $181 M in sponsored projects. TCU’s total research spending was a record $9.8 M. How “soon” will we dwarf Rice? How “soon” will we dwarf Tech’s 2022 $212 M? Baylor’s $47 M?
Look I hope we grow a massive medical research enterprise. It will take decades.
Last edited:
Limey Frog
Full Member
FWIW, the Pac 10 put out a statement on Twitter to the effect that they're all united, wish to stay together, and are about to sign a great TV deal.
Also, kids, your parents want you to know apropos of nothing at all that they are very happy together and absolutely aren't going to divorce, ever. Not that you asked; no one asked. Why are you crying? I'm not shouting, YOU'RE SHOUTING.
Also, kids, your parents want you to know apropos of nothing at all that they are very happy together and absolutely aren't going to divorce, ever. Not that you asked; no one asked. Why are you crying? I'm not shouting, YOU'RE SHOUTING.
Hemingway
Active Member
And how did the “alliance with big 10” thing workout for the Pac?
hiphopfroggy
Active Member
lol ok not Rice and perhaps a few others, but most without a medical school.
Glad we had this meaningful back and forth.
TCUdirtbag
Active Member
Many people incorrectly think that opening a medical school means we are on a one-way bullet train to R1 or even AAU status. That thinking very much underestimates (1) how far away we are in total research spending and (2) the many requirements beyond total spending.
I’m just pointing out that you’re not just kinda wrong but like many grossly underestimating what it takes to achieve those sorts of research classifications.
We aren’t R1 or AAU’ing our way into an elite league. We’re going to have to earn it on the field and some of the B1G’s requirements would have to change.
As much conversation as there is on this board about realignment, it’s helpful to be realistic.
Palliative Care
Active Member
It is also helpful to be careful what you wish for.
So 5 division games, then 2 from each other division (9 conference games), rotating each year so you play the whole conference every 3 years? I like it.
White ones, I hear...
Creeperfrog
Active Member
I actually like that format as long as we are in the right, Texas, division. Other teams outside of texas will hate it.
Is that sarcasm at the end? I think thats what you are going for, but I'm more than happy not seeing Cincinnati or UCF or even WVU until 3 years
OmniscienceFrog
Full Member
But metro area is what counts as far as TV numbers go. The individual populations of Dallas and Fort Worth proper vs Austin and San Antonio proper doesn't.
OmniscienceFrog
Full Member
And what exactly is Rice's rightful place in college athletics? Or SMU's? SMU hasn't even had a baseball program for the last 43 years.
Frozen Frog
Active Member
I believe becoming an AAU school or a major research university would likely kill what makes many of you who attended TCU love it. You can probably kiss goodbye the idea of having great teaching professors. Instead you are going to have far more professors focused solely on their research with the goal of finding assistants whose sole job is to keep the undergrads away from the professor.
