yes, the "baylor should get out" attitude is widespread here.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/461145.html
Quote:
It was reported the other day that three former chairmen of Baylor's Board of Regents suggested university president Robert Sloan should step down. In lieu of the Patrick Dennehy/Dave Bliss scandal, it was suggested that Sloan no longer has the credibility, nor the acceptance of the community, to represent the school in a positive manner.
Another child born of this atypical and contemptible situation is the question of whether or not Baylor is fit for big time college athletics and inclusion in the Big 12 Conference.
The answer should have been given without the scandal serving as a shameful catalyst. There are too many other pressing issues in the community to be concerned with before addressing the issue of conference membership. But now, with a potential shakeup looming in the highest office on campus, it seems only fitting that Baylor's role in university competition be reviewed, if not overhauled.
This is far from the first time that the issue of conference withdrawal has been raised in Waco, nor will it be the last. Three university presidents are already on record saying that they will not pursue such procedures, effectively removing the possibility of forced withdrawal from the table. In the Big 12, a "supermajority" of nine universities is needed to evict any school. If it is going to happen, it has to emanate from the athletic director's office - in Waco.
Some will argue, and it's a hard message to silence, that Baylor would be crazy to leave the recognition and stature of the Big 12, let alone the lucrative financial package that accompanies membership in such a conference.
But sooner or later, the school has to decide if the money is worth the embarrassment and negative attention of another seven- or eight-loss conference campaign. There is already enough negative attention to last a lifetime.
If this were something unexpected - if Baylor were supposed to be competitive - there would undoubtedly be less fuss to remove the program from the conference. But the numbers are too staggering to ignore. Since the dawn of the Big 12 in 1996, Baylor is 4-54 in conference play. Last season's 35-32 win against Kansas was the only win in four years.
Why not fret over Kansas and their inability to compete with the rest of the region?
Simple. There are two major "revenue" sports in the college game: football and basketball. Kansas, if you've been paying attention, has a pretty decent hoops team. Baylor has rendered theirs useless.
If the school does the right thing and pulls out so that the other universities - all of which are massive state schools that are better equipped to participate in a super-conference - don't have to resort to the unenviable position of asking one of their peers to step aside, then the Big 12 will have to decide on a feasible replacement.
If it wants to take the best team from its prospective pool of candidates, it should take Colorado State. Currently on par with two-time defending Big 12 North champion Colorado, the Rams already are superior to Kansas and Iowa State, could certainly hang with Nebraska and give Kansas State a heap of trouble.
The move may not be popular to those who look at the annual Baylor game as an automatic win and tuneup heading into bowl season. But Baylor belongs in a conference where it has a purpose beyond baseball and tennis, where they are very good. What the school needs now is seclusion. In the glare of the Big 12 spotlight, they will find none.
|
as the article mentions, the big $$ revenues come from basketball and football, both of at which baylor sucks. (and it's not like they were good).
baylor contributes almost nothing to the earn revenue for the conference in these sports, but mooch off the rest of the teams.
baylor is a small private school of < 15k. i just dont see how they can hang on par with a school like UT with an attendance of 50k+.