In an earlier post, we mentioned that there was no way on earth Texas would ever go to the SEC (not that the SEC is looking to expand, but our point was that the SEC, by virtue of running off 3 solid academic universities because they couldn't see eye to eye on how to handle recruiting players and competing in athletics, does not have the entire package to offer an institution like Texas; in contrast, the Big 10 by maintaining an emphasis on academics is now poised to possibly add another powerhouse program to the conference, Penn State being the first in 1990. The last two teams to join the SEC: Arkansas and South Carolina). To further reinforce our logic, here are some staggering numbers for you to ponder.
Endowments
| SEC Schools | $$$ | Big 10 Schools | $$$ | Pac 10 Schools | $$$ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vanderbilt | 3.48b | Michigan | 7.1b | Stanford | 17.2b | ||
| Florida | 1.21b | Northwestern | 6.5b | USC | 3.7b | ||
| Alabama | 1.00b | Minnesota | 2.8b | Washington | 3.2b | ||
| Arkansas | 876m | Ohio State | 2.3b | Cal | 2.8b | ||
| Tennessee | 867m | Purdue | 1.8b | UCLA | 2.6b | ||
| Kentucky | 831m | Penn State | 1.6b | Wash State | 678m | ||
| LSU | 593m | Wisconsin | 1.6b | Arizona | 519m | ||
| Georgia | 572m | Indiana | 1.6b | Oregon | 498m | ||
| Ole Miss | 495m | Illinois | 1.5b | Oregon State | 476m | ||
| South Carolina | 438m | Michigan State | 1.2b | Arizona State | 407m | ||
| Auburn | 378m | Iowa | 1.0b | ||||
| Mississippi State | 350m |
TEXAS - $16.1 billion
Regardless of where Texas might go, if anywhere, they will be the big dog on the block (sans Stanford in the Pac10) when it comes to endowments, but as you can see, Texas would definitely be more at home with the schools of the Big 10 or Pac 10 when it comes to endowments.
And again, the point here is that the Big 10 and the Pac 10, by not selling their souls for football, appear to be in very strong positions when it comes to the topic of conference expansion and sustainability.
Texas also ranks 47th in the US News and World Report rankings, which puts them right at home with the Big 10.
We found that link we were talking about earlier where Texas had already looked at joining the SEC and decided they were not a good fit. Main article here. But we found the article reading The Rivalry, Esq. about the "Death of the Big 12 Conference."
The Longhorns next turned to the Big Ten.
Having added Penn State in 1990, the Big Ten was now made of universities that, in the view of UT officials, matched UT's profile — large state schools with strong academic reputations. Berdahl liked the fact that 10 conference members belonged to the American Association of Universities.
Yet, distance remained a disadvantage. Iowa, the closest Big Ten school to Austin, was 856 miles away — but the appeal of having 10 of 12 schools in the same time zone was seen as a plus.
But after adding Penn State in 1990, Big Ten officials had put a four-year moratorium on expansion. Although admitting interest, Big Ten bosses ultimately rejected UT's overtures.
That left the SEC as a possible relocation target for the Longhorns — until Berdahl let it be known that UT wasn't interested because of the league's undistinguished academic profile. Only two of 12 schools in the SEC were American Association of Universities members and UT officials saw admissions standards to SEC schools as too lenient.
"We were quite interested in raising academic standards," Berdahl says. "And the Southeastern Conference had absolutely no interest in that."
So that's three major categories: endowments, academic rankings, and recruiting numbers (we touched on that here), where it is crystal clear that Texas is a much better match for the Big 10 than they ever would be for the SEC. "Frank the Tank's Slant" has everything else covered.