President Barack Obama announced on June 3 that he plans to nominate MIT School of Engineering dean, Subra Suresh, to act as the next director of the National Science Foundation.

With an annual budget of roughly seven billion dollars, the National Science Foundation is a federal government agency which serves to promote “opportunities for research and education funding in all areas of science and engineering,” according to their website.

Assuming the appointment is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Suresh will serve a six-year term. He will replace the current director, Arden Berment, who was scheduled to leave the foundation on June 1.

Also appointing the Department of State’s Ambassador to the Republic of Lebanon and the Ambassador to the Hellenic Republic in his announcement, “I am proud that such experienced and committed individuals have agreed to take on these important roles in my administration. I look forward to working with them in the coming months and years,” Obama said.

As director of the National Science Foundation, Suresh will oversee the foundation’s staff and management, which directs “program creation and administration, merit review, planning, budget and day-to-day operations,” according to the NSF website.

The foundation includes a workforce of nearly 1700 employees, who are based primarily at the foundation’s headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. The staff includes workers who review research proposals, primarily from academic institutions like MIT, which are awarded through a merit-based process. The foundation also includes the Office of the Inspector General, which examines the NSF’s work and reports to the National Science Board and Congress.

Since July of 2007, Suresh has served as the dean of the School of Engineering and has held joint faculty appointments in four MIT departments. Under his leadership, the department has most notably seen a spike in the diversity of new faculty appointments.

According to the MIT news office, “approximately 45 new faculty members have joined [the School of Engineering] since he became dean, and in 2009, for the first time in its history, the school hired more new women faculty than men.”

In contrast to previous National Science Foundation directors who were no longer active scientists, Suresh maintains an active lab, which focuses on largely on the nanomachanics of biomaterials.

According to the News Office, Suresh has authored over 220 research articles in international journals, acted as a coinventor on over 12 U.S. and international patents, and has coedited five books, including Fatigue of Materials and Thin Film Materials — a prominent textbook used among materials science and engineering — during his research career.

Over 100 students and research scientists have trained in his research group, which has focused on such topics as the mechanobiology of malaria in infected red blood cells. He has received such honors for his work as the 2007 European Materials Medal and the 2006 Acta Materialia Gold Medal. Additionally, the Technology Review magazine named Suresh’s work on nanobiomechanics as one of the top 10 emerging technologies that “will have a significant impact on business, medicine or culture” in 2006.

Among his other academic appointments, Suresh has been elected to the U.S. National Academy of Engineering, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Indian National Academy of Engineering, the German National Academy of Sciences, the Indian Academy of Sciences, and the Spanish Royal Academy of Sciences.

Suresh earned his bachelor of technology degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, in 1977. He received his MS from Iowa State University in 1979, his ScD from MIT in 1981, and completed postdoctoral work from 1981 to 1983 at the University of California at Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Suresh joined Brown University as an assistant professor of engineering in December 1983 and was promoted to full professor in July 1989. In 1993, Suresh joined MIT as the R. P. Simmons Professor of Materials Science and Engineering.

For several months now conference realignment rumors have been swirling, but one finally cropped up that should have Texas Tech fans salivating.

First, it emerged that the Big Ten, which in one of sport’s great oddities consists of eleven teams, is looking to add schools. Missouri and Nebraska, two of Tech’s Big 12 mates, are prime targets. The Big Ten’s television network, among other things, makes that conference far more lucrative than the current Big 12.

And remember, even the most altruistic college athletics fan knows it’s all about the money. Also keep in mind we’re talking about much more than football, but football is the biggest breadwinner for athletic departments.

The Big Ten rumblings were followed by rumor after rumor. The rumors ranged from common sense (Boise State to the Mountain West) to extreme (dissolving the NCAA in favor of new superconferences).

And so we come to the latest rumor.

The report, which originated from Texas’ Rivals.com site and has been corroborated by several other sources, says Texas Tech will be invited to join the Pac 10 along with the rest of their Big 12 South counterparts except Baylor. In place of Baylor will be Colorado of the Big 12 North.

If the Pac 10 does invite these schools, and it seems increasingly likely they will, the Red Raiders have to leave.

Go, go, go. Happiness is the Big 12 in the rear-view mirror.

In fact, the BigPac 16 (better name to be determined) would rescue Tech from being the school left out of the impending shake up in the NCAA.

How?

The big rumor before this, which was kept a better secret than the BigPac 16, was that the SEC was looking to add on four schools: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

Texas is the prettiest girl at the conference realignment ball. The Longhorns’ athletic department consistently generates more revenue than any other school in the nation. Any conference would be glad to take the Longhorns, as long as UT doesn’t go all Lone Ranger on everybody and start their own TV network.

With Texas comes A&M. Like it or not, Texas considers the Aggies fiercer rivals than the Red Raiders. College Station is also in a much nicer proximity to the current SEC schools.

Oklahoma is another highly desirable candidate for conferences looking to expand, and they’d like Oklahoma State to come too. Don’t discount the T. Boone Pickens effect, which has vaulted the Cowboy athletic department into the upper echelon of revenue.

Would Texas want Tech to come along too? Does the Texas legislature want to make sure the big three Texas schools stay together? The Columbus Dispatch obtained e-mails in which Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee tells Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney that he spoke with Texas’ president and Texas has “a ‘Tech’ problem.”

Whatever that means, it’s fair to say Tech still doesn’t quite have the national profile of these schools, and Lubbock isn’t exactly the most accessible location. The Red Raiders, while not shunned, just aren’t as attractive as the other Big 12 South schools for the SEC or Big Ten. The Pac-10 doesn’t seem to see it that way, or perhaps Texas would demand the Red Raiders join them in the BigPac 16.

If the four rumored SEC targets left and the departure of Nebraska and Mizzou is completed, Tech would be in a tough spot. They’d likely have to join Baylor and the Kansas schools and head to the Mountain West. It should be noted that the Mountain West would almost certainly have to get a BCS bid, but it would make Tech a big fish in a small pond.

Tech is right to try to be a big fish in a big pond, or at the very least a medium-sized fish in a big pond, and that’s why the BigPac 16 gives Tech a fantastic opportunity.

Sure, there would be a down side. Some travel would be atrocious, especially for “non-revenue” sports. But there shouldn’t be too much complaining from fans about trips to Los Angeles and Seattle every year. The hope is the new alliance would see higher profits and make the travel costs worthwhile.

The BigPac 16 means Tech keeps all its important rivals (sorry Baylor), and stays in a conference that will make a national impact.

Right now it’s all conjecture, but it sure is fun.

Or at least it is when Tech’s not on the outside looking in.

In the spirit of examining bad calls in sports history, I decided to take a look at a few U. Oklahoma Sooner football games where officials stepped in at crucial moments and altered the outcome of the game. I listed these games from bad to worst. Things I considered how to rank the games: how bad the call was (or calls, actually), what the public’s reaction was, and how the call affected history.

So without further adieu, the three worst calls in OU football history:

NOV. 19, 2005: OU-TEXAS TECH

The crime: It is said that in basketball, a lot can happen in 30 seconds. Well in the final 30 seconds of this 2005 game in Lubbock, Texas, the officials turned 30 seconds into 15 minutes and applied that adage to football.

Three plays were reviewed at the end of Tech’s 13-play drive at SBC Jones Stadium:

• First, a questionable spot on a fourth-down completion. Tech receiver Danny Amendola caught a deflected pass and came down at the OU 24-yard line, but the referees incorrectly placed the ball at the 23, giving the Red Raiders a first down by an inch. A review failed to change the spot.

• Then, Tech quarterback Cody Hodges threw in the end zone to receiver Joel Filani, who bobbled a ball that was never even caught — much less inbounds — yet was initially ruled a touchdown. This time, the review did overturn the call.

• Finally, Taurean Henderson’s 2-yard touchdown run, which came courtesy of side judge Scott Koch. Henderson was awarded the score after being tackled short of the end zone. The tailback run a draw up the middle and, as time expired, was hit by OU linebacker Rufus Alexander. As Henderson fell to the ground, he stretched the football toward the end zone. His final movement while on the ground was to cradle the ball above his head, across the goal line. Koch ran in from the side, pushed his way through players, poked his head into the pile of bodies and then raised his arms to signal a touchdown. The review lasted for several minutes before the officials confirmed their hazy call.

It was declared the worst-officiated game in college football history by Gil LeBreton of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

“If the Big 12 is going to have instant replay and ignore it, why bother even reviewing a call?” LeBreton wrote in his blog.

After storming off the field, OU head coach Bob Stoops told reporters he was mad as he’s ever been. However, the animated Stoops who was stomping around the locker room remained calm and composed when addressing the media in his post-game conference.

“Bottom line, they got those calls and we didn’t,” Stoops said. “And they made enough plays to win and we didn’t.”

Former Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg stood by the replay official’s decision not to overturn the final play.

“I think the replay official did exactly what we have asked him to do,” Weiberg said. “He looked at the video that was available to him and it did not meet the standard of being able to reverse the call.”

The verdict: While this loss hurt, it didn’t prevent OU from reaching a BCS game — the Sooners had already suffered losses to TCU, UCLA and Texas — but it did ended the team’s four-game winning streak and added another painful blemish to tough season. And while the argument can be made that OU should have never put itself into such a tight position (the offense was virtually shut down in the third quarter, allowing Tech to extend its lead), the defense did what it was asked to do: Stop Texas Tech.

All OU had to do was to stop Tech from converting a first down, which it did, and keep Henderson out of the end zone, which it also did. The Sooners won the game of inches, but the officiating crew gave Tech a nudge forward, and gave OU a bitter finish to an exciting game. Clearly the worst officiating performance in the Stoops era. That is, until…

SEPT. 16, 2006: OU-OREGON

The crime: It was a crazy 72 seconds in 2006 at Autzen Stadium that all Sooner fans would rather forget.

Oregon had just scored a touchdown in the fourth quarter of a hard-fought game to narrow OU’s lead to 33-27. With 1:12 left on the clock, the Ducks attempted an onside kick, which was recovered by OU running back Allen Patrick.

To everyone’s amazement, however, the referees signaled Oregon ball. The call was sent to the booth to be reviewed by replay official Gordon Reise, who spent seven minutes missing what everyone else in the world saw: That an Oregon player touched the ball before it went 10 yards. Oh, and not to mention the part where the Sooner recovered the ball, not Oregon.

Despite an incredible amount of video evidence in OU’s favor, the ball was given to Oregon. 

To add insult to injury, during the ensuing drive there was a pass interference call against OU that also was reviewed. Although replays showed the ball was tipped, which negates all interference penalties, officials confirmed the penalty. The Ducks got the call, scored on the next play and ended up winning the game.

The Pac-10 acknowledged the Monday after that the kick was touched by an Oregon player before it traveled the required 10 yards, so the ball should have been awarded to the Sooners.

“The fact that the errors on the onside kick altered the outcome of the game is most unfortunate and unsettling,” said Tom Hansen, the then Pac-10 commissioner. “Errors clearly were made and not corrected, and for that we apologize to the University of Oklahoma, [Bob] Stoops and his players.”

Still, OU head coach Bob Stoops called the error unacceptable.

“I’ve made a million mistakes; I’ll make a million more. In each game … there are things I could have done differently or changed. Unlike officials, players and coaches don’t have that opportunity,” Stoops said. “They had an opportunity to get it right, and they chose not to.”

The verdict: The loss was one of two the Sooners suffered during the regular season, and it most likely kept OU from playing in the BCS National Championship. However, even though the officials botched two calls, the Sooners’ fate was still in their hands. The defense should have stopped the Ducks’ touchdown drive and kicker Garrett Hartley should have converted his 44-yard field goal.

So while the officials handed Oregon’s offense more chances than it had earned, OU had last-minute opportunities to walk away victorious. For that, the team must be held accountable. Still, the horrendous officiating robbed the Sooners of what appeared to be an almost wrapped-up road victory.

OCT. 13, 1984: OU-TEXAS

The crime: Barry Switzer may have been upset with many of the calls during the 1984 edition of the Red River Shootout, but it was the call that wasn’t made during Texas’ final drive of the game that sent the OU head football coach into a frenzy.

With OU leading 15-12, Sooners defensive back Keith Stanberry appeared to have picked off Texas quarterback Todd Dodge’s pass in the end zone with seconds remaining. The officiating crew ruled the pass incomplete, saying Stanberry was out of bounds. However, TV replays clearly showed that Stansberry intercepted the pass, had possessions and was inbounds.

On the next play, Texas kicker Jeff Ward booted a 32-yard field goal on the last play to tie the game 15-15 and sent Switzer tripping over his headphone cables while he chased after the referees, seething at the decisive call.

“It’s the most controversial call I’ve ever been involved in,” Switzer said.

The Big Eight Conference later admitted it erred with the call.

“We regrettably were wrong, and it was an official’s error; we feel real bad about it,” said Bruce Finlayson, then the Big Eight supervisor of officials.

But the unacknowledged pick wasn’t the only thing that stunk up the Cotton Bowl that day, the refs also missed a Texas fumble on that final drive.

Switzer later said the officiating crew “actually took the game away from us.”

The verdict: OU had a 4-0 record coming into the Texas game, but the team still went on to lose two games during the season and finish 9-2-1. Still, while it may not have had the drama or the season-altering impact as the debacle in Eugene, Oreg., any time the Sooners are prevented from handing their bitter rivals a defeat is always a travesty.

An argument can be made that if instant replay had been used in 1984, Stanberry’s waived-off interception almost surely would have been overturned. Then again, Oregon’s onside kick and the poor spots against Texas Tech seemed to have enough evidence to reverse the calls.

Around Norman, beating Texas is a measuring stick for how successful a season is, and when the officials took that away from OU in 1984, it left an awfully bitter taste in people’s mouth. Stanberry was inbounds. Not even loyal Longhorns deny it.

The Nevada System of Higher Education’s Board of Regents voted Thursday to cut two departments and five programs from U. Nevada, Reno.

The vote was 11 to two in favor of the cuts, the two opposition votes coming from regents Cedric Crear and Mark Alden, both of Las Vegas.

Crear said the proposed non-academic cuts to offices like that of the president’s and vice president’s were too vague for him to support.

“40 percent of the cuts, I didn’t know where they were being cut from,” Crear said. “They broke down the academic cuts but they didn’t break down the non-academic cuts.  I didn’t want to put my vote behind something I wasn’t fully aware of.”

UNR Provost Marc Johnson said Alden, who voted via phone from Las Vegas, was in favor of cutting salary, not faculty.

“One of those votes came from an individual that preferred all along that there were across-the-board pay cuts,” Johnson said. “Alden has been consistent from the beginning that he didn’t want faculty cuts, just salary reduction.”

The $6 million in cuts made Thursday were a start toward reconciling an $11 million budget deficit. The departments of animal biotechnology and economic resources were cut completely from the university’s curriculum.  Speech communication, German studies, interior design and supply chain management, as well as the Center for Nutrition and Metabolism, were also cut.

Johnson said that although the university is not happy to cut departments and programs, Thursday’s results demonstrate the Board of Regents’ commitment against micromanaging university affairs.

“While we are not satisfied with having to go through with curricular review, we are happy that the board of regents has followed through with the principle that they are counting on the president’s and the administration’s ability to manage their affairs,” Johnson said.

While the cuts have been contested fervently by affected faculty members, the department reductions are not as severe as the original proposal made by the provost’s office in March.  The French program and a focus in statistics have been spared the originally recommended reductions after being challenged by program directors and faculty senate.

While the university administration has been criticized for neglecting the interests of individual departments, Johnson said holding on to French and statistics is indicative of a healthy decision-making process.

“The fact is that the faculty got to say a lot and come up with some creative solutions. I think what that means is that the process worked the way it was supposed to work,” Johnson said.  “It shows the president didn’t just endorse all the provost’s recommendations and did not stay deaf to the faculty’s comments.”

The oil spill at the deepwater drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico has had unexpected results for a number of people, including scientists at U. Nebraska-Lincoln.

Researchers at UNL’s Center for Advanced Land Management Information Technologies (CALMIT) have recently been active around the Gulf of Mexico collecting data on the current state of the Grand Bay National Estuary Research Reserve in southern Mississippi.This data could later be used to determine what effects the spill might have if it reaches the area.

CALMIT researches new ways to improve land management through technology like remote sensing and geographic imaging systems. For the past six years, CALMIT has worked with the Environmental Cooperative Science Center to collect data on the types of vegetation in the national estuary reserves, a network of geographic areas set aside for things like research and education.

CALMIT first surveyed the Grand Bay Reserve five years ago, and scientists were scheduled to return to collect updated data at the end of May. But once the deepwater oil leak started, Rick Perk, a research scientist and airborne program coordinator with CALMIT, said the group moved up its time table and began work on the reserve on May 5.

“The oil spill pushed up our return because we wanted to get baseline data for if or when the oil spill hits the area,” Perk said. “The object of us getting there was to beat the oil.”

To collect data on the Grand Bay and other estuary reserves, CALMIT scientists fly over the area and use a hyperspectral imager to take pictures of different parts of the reserves.

Once the images have been taken, they are fit together into a map of the entire area, which researchers can use to study the types ofvegetation in the estuaries and what conditions they are in.

Bob Moser, a pilot for CALMIT, said the Grand Bay Reserve, which covers around 18,000 acres total, took two days to image, but the amount of time each expedition takes depends on the size of the area being studied and on the weather.

Although the Grand Bay Reserve could still be damaged by the oil spill, Perk said it appeared to be safe several weeks ago. Oil wasn’t visible near the reserve during CALMIT’s last visit, but that could change depending on how the water moves the oil.

“At this point it’s relatively safe, but we are at the whims of the weather,” Perk said.

Although CALMIT’s initial involvement with the oil spill was more coincidence than design, Perk said the group has been contacted by other organizations about assessing damage from the spill. But with much about the extent and effects of the spill still uncertain, Perk said any future involvement of CALMIT’s is still undecided.

“Right now everything’s in a state of flux,” he said.

While women have been split into two camps – those who wanted to get pregnant and those who don’t – a study by a U. Nebraska-Lincoln professor concluded that one out of four women show uncertainty towards pregnancy.

“The perception of women okay getting pregnant was surprising,” said Julia McQuillan, associate professor of sociology and the lead author of the study.

According to a press release, in the study of about 4,000 sexually active women between the ages of 25 and 45, about six percent of women said they were trying to get pregnant while about 71 percent said they were trying to prevent pregnancy. However, about 23 percent said they were “okay either way.”

McQuillan said the results of the study could help reassure other women that there are other women out there who were ambivalent about getting pregnant.

“One thing we think is that this is a group of women not studied a lot,” she said.

However, McQuillan said there has been other research looking at whether women test to get pregnant.

The results of the study could also help the healthcare of women, she said.

“One thing we’re finding is that women who are okay getting pregnant are not using birth control,” she said.

This can lead to sexually transmitted diseases.

Women who are ambivalent might not notice that they are unable to give birth to a child naturally, McQuillan said.

“We want people to be aware that one year of intercourse unprotected without getting pregnant is a sign of infertility,” she said.
Allison Bitz, a UNL PhD Student in Counseling Psychology, has two children.

“I’ve always envisioned that I would have kids in this time of my life,” she said.

Bitz said while she knew she wanted children someday, there was still some hesitation as a graduate student as she was worried about how people would see her.

“I also had some fears about being a student and not being as good as a mom as I wanted to be,” she said.

Bitz said she has no regrets about having children while being a graduate student.

“I wasn’t ready to put my life on hold,” she said.

U.Nebraska-Lincoln broadcast journalism student Brandi Kruse of Glyndon, Minn., will be competing in the 50th annual National Broadcast News Championship of the Hearst Journalism Awards Program.  UNL is one of 110 colleges and universities with accredited undergraduate journalism schools eligible to participate in the program.

The Hearst Journalism Awards Program was founded in 1960 to provide assistance and encouragement to journalism education at a college and university level. The program awards scholarships to students that perform outstandingly in college-level journalism and also awards grants to the students’ schools. The Hearst Foundation, named in honor of publisher William Randolph Hearst, has, since 1948, contributed more than $735 million in areas of education, healthcare, social services and the arts in every state.

Kruse, who is one of five finalists from around the country, has been selected for the 2010 Broadcast News Championship, which will be held June 8-12 in New York City. Kruse is a finalist in the radio division of the Hearst National Broadcast News Championship.  Other categories for the competition consist of six monthly writing competitions, photojournalism, and four broadcasting news competitions, which are divided into two subgroups of television and radio. Awards will range from $1500-$5000.

Kruse, who grew up in a small town, credits the hour and half bus ride she took every morning to school for her love of journalism. Having to wake up so early, she would watch the national news with her mother.

“When I was very young I enjoyed watching the news and I had a very inquisitive nature. I also just loved talking to people. My mom always told me how I would tell stories to anyone who would listen, and when it comes down to it, a journalist is a story teller. My dream of being a reporter gave me hope, and news became an escape from any problem I had at school or at home,” said Kruse.

Kruse notes that journalism gives her a chance to feed her curiosity, to share knowledge with other people and to keep emotions in mind while reporting, because good news is meant to inspire, illuminate, and at times even aggravate people.  Her first experience in journalism was working for a radio station in Lincoln, 1240 KFOR-AM, as a reporter/anchor. She earned a statewide award for her work there.  She is also a member of ABC News on Campus at UNL and has worked for NET Television on political and social documentaries. She has also interned at KOLN/KGIN-TV News in Lincoln, ESPN Radio in Fargo, N.D., and has appeared on the college’s program, “Star City News.”

“You have to develop an identity as a reporter and decide off the bat what it is you want to get and give as a journalist. That identity is what will drive you, and if you lose it you will lose your passion,” she said.

In the world of journalism today, Kruse notes that the news is losing its credibility (a journalist’s worst nightmare) and the tendency to have a news overload on stories that aren’t of importance. She wants to get the news’ identity back and make it captivating again.

When challenged by a ex-Marine, Sen. Claire McCaskill defended her vote to change the policy prohibiting people who are openly gay from serving in the military.

McCaskill, D-Mo., spoke at Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 280 in Columbia Tuesday as part of a two-day tour across the state addressing issues facing veterans and promoting what she has done for them.

During a question and answer period, the former Marine asked McCaskill why she voted in the Senate Armed Services Committee to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy before reports on the impact of such a change were complete.

She said although the committee voted to change the policy, the changes will not go into effect until the reports are complete and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense confirm it will not destabilize the military or negatively impact morale.

She also explained to the audience why she believes the policy needs to be changed, echoing the words of Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen.

“I respected the way he said it, ‘our military is the best in the world because of the integrity in the military’,” McCaskill said. “We welcome their service, we accept their service, we mourn at their sacrifice, but yet we ask them to lose their integrity about who they are.”

McCaskill compared her vote to repeal the policy to President Harry Truman’s controversial decision to integrate the armed services in 1948.

She said 82 percent of Americans were opposed to integration at the time. She said generals’ remarks on integration were strikingly similar to the rhetoric used in favor of keeping the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in place.

“The quotes are frankly identical to what we’re hearing now,” she said. “‘This will cause chaos. This will cause physical violence within the military. I don’t want to shower with a black man. I don’t want to sleep in the same building with a black man. I don’t want to be in the same fox hole.’”

McCaskill said she was confident Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would exercise his power to veto the policy change if he feels it would negatively impact the military.

“I’ve watched the Secretary of Defense,” McCaskill said. “He’s perfectly capable of independent judgment. This Secretary of Defense has served under [President] George [W.] Bush, is serving under President Obama, and I’ve watched him tell both presidents ‘No.’”

Jon Hall, a retired Major General who served 32 years in the Air Force, said he has known many people who were gay who served in the military but were terrified they would be terminated if their colleagues discovered their sexual orientation.

Hall, who is gay, knew a gay Air Force colonel who lost his retirement and veteran’s benefits when his sexual orientation was discovered after the colonel had served 26 years in the Air Force.

In the down economy, Hall said, he thinks many more people who are gay would take advantage of career opportunities in the armed services if the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy were repealed.

“There’s a lot of gay people who would join the military if they didn’t have to lie about it,” Hall said.

Second-seeded Texas A&M U. staved off two elimination games Sunday at the Coral Gables Regional at Alex Rodriguez Park at Mark Light Field and live to see another day.

Without a hit through the first three innings and trailing 3-0, the Aggies scored 11 runs over the next nine outs to beat top-seeded U. Miami 11-7 and force a decisive game 7 p.m. tomorrow.

“I spoke to the players this morning and told them that we were going to be at the field for 10 hours, so make sure you get after it and compete,” Texas A&M head coach Rob Childress said. “It was going to take a heroic effort on everyone’s part to make sure we finished the day off the right way.”

Closer John Stilson, who pitched in the first game against Dartmouth and tallied more than 120 pitches on the day, tossed 3.2 scoreless innings of four-hit ball for his 10th save of the year. He also lowered his ERA to 0.76.

“That was all adrenaline,” Stilson said. “I knew I had to get the job done for us to go to tomorrow and I just did what I do out there and had a good day and made the pitches when I needed to.”

Starter Michael Wacha (9-2) picked up the win for the Aggies (43-20-1) despite surrendering seven runs on 10 hits in 5.1 innings.

That included a three-run shot by Harold Martinez, his 21st of the year, to give the Hurricanes (42-18) a quick 3-0 lead in the first.

Brodie Greene got things going for Texas A&M when he collected its first hit on a stand-up double to left in the fourth. When Joe Patterson grounded out to second to advance him, Matt Juengel produced an RBI single.

Adam Smith followed with a two-run homer, his 10th of the season, to tie the game at 3.

But Miami came right back to take a 5-3 lead with back-to-back blasts from Nathan Melendres and Michael Broad in the sixth and seventh spots of the lineup.

The pair combined to go 6 for 10 with three homers, three RBI and four runs.

Poor fielding doomed the Hurricanes in the fifth when first baseman Scott Lawson dropped a throw from second and a ball hit off starting pitcher David Gutierrez for an infield single.

With runners on first and second cleanup hitter Patterson hit a ball into the gap in right-center to drive in two and tie the game at 5. Juengel doubled to right and collected the third straight hit for the Aggies and gave them their first lead at 6-5.

Texas A&M then broke the game wide open with a five-run sixth on just three hits.

Kenny Jackson led off with a walk, Andrew Collazo was hit by a pitch, Joaquin Hinojosa put down a bunt, Tyler Naquin doubled, Greene singled and Jeungel homered to deep left.

“Early on in the game I was doing a really good job keeping the ball down and working my offspeed for strikes,” said Gutierrez, who dropped to 5-2 on the year. “The fourth inning I left a couple balls up and I just had to make an adjustment and I didn’t.”

Miami had its chances, stranding nine runners, including six over a three-inning span between the fifth and seventh.

“We didn’t get those clutch hits that we usually get in the postseason,” Martinez said.

Motivation shifted for good when Naquin threw out Lawson from right field as he tried to score from second in the bottom of the fifth with the score 6-5 in Texas A&M’s favor.

Lawson, who reached on an infield single and went to second on an error by the shortstop, ran for home on Chris Pelaez’s single through the hole between second and first

“Whenever runners are on in big situations I visualize that part of the game happening and sure enough I saw it before the play happened,” Naquin said. “There was no doubt in my mind that I was going to make that throw.”

The winner of tomorrow’s game will head to Gainesville to face the overall third seed Florida Gators in the NCAA Super Regional.

“Texas A&M’s got a very good club and we didn’t play well enough to win. We could’ve pitched better and played better defense and they outplayed us today,” Miami head coach Jim Morris said. “Number one we need a crowd tomorrow night. This is why we come here, that’s why players play here, that’s why I coach here, that’s why we come to this program is because of fan support. We need a packed house tomorrow night.”

The Big 12 held meetings in Kansas City, Mo. this week and one of the proposals that surfaced involved six members of the conference to move to the Pac-10.

Athletic Director Lew Perkins didn’t attend the past three meetings because of a schedule conflict, but he is not worried about the where the state of the Big 12 is headed.

“Based on a considerable amount of work by Commissioner Dan Beebe and others,” Perkins said in a release Friday, “I am very encouraged as these meetings end about the strength and viability of the Big 12 Conference.”

“I respect the candidness of everyone who attended these meetings. We engaged cooperatively in a positive manner to work toward the goal that I think everyone wants, and I can say that I feel very good about the future of the Big 12. We at Kansas Athletics know that the Big 12 is one of the best conferences in the country, and we are confident about its future. I appreciate all of those at KU who have worked very hard to keep the Big 12 at the forefront of intercollegiate athletics. We all must stay patient and let this process take its course, but at the end of the day I am convinced that the Big 12 will remain, as it is today, a national leader.”

Among the schools in consideration to join the Pac-10 are Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Colorado, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little was kept abreast on the situation as well.

“Lew has kept me informed as these meetings progressed. I share his optimism about the Big 12 and look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure a strong future for the conference.”