academically how do these two schools compare?

endowment:
zona: $612 mill
utah: $668 mill

ARWU national/international
zona: 45/78
utah 47/85

USNRW
zona: 119
utah: 121

students total (postgrad)
zona: 31k (7,100)
utah: 32k (7,500)

AAU
zona

while zona has a clear academic advantage lets say during a hypothetical b10/pac12 merger the b10 is taking cal/stanford, usc/ucla, oregon/washington, and colorado.

by taking arizona they would have to force a rivalry between cu & zona whereas with utah they are a very natural fit for CU and longtime rival.

question: could utah's non AAU, and slightly weaker academics be enough to overcome for a b10 invite based on cultural ft alone?

(03-27-2014 11:52 AM)john01992 Wrote:  academically how do these two schools compare?

endowment:
zona: $612 mill
utah: $668 mill

ARWU national/international
zona: 45/78
utah 47/85

USNRW
zona: 119
utah: 121

students total (postgrad)
zona: 31k (7,100)
utah: 32k (7,500)

AAU
zona

while zona has a clear academic advantage lets say during a hypothetical b10/pac12 merger the b10 is taking cal/stanford, usc/ucla, oregon/washington, and colorado.

by taking arizona they would have to force a rivalry between cu & zona whereas with utah they are a very natural fit for CU and longtime rival.

question: could utah's non AAU, and slightly weaker academics be enough to overcome for a b10 invite based on cultural ft alone?

Are you assuming they wouldn't include all 26 schools if they merged?

(03-27-2014 12:08 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 11:52 AM)john01992 Wrote:  academically how do these two schools compare?

endowment:
zona: $612 mill
utah: $668 mill

ARWU national/international
zona: 45/78
utah 47/85

USNRW
zona: 119
utah: 121

students total (postgrad)
zona: 31k (7,100)
utah: 32k (7,500)

AAU
zona

while zona has a clear academic advantage lets say during a hypothetical b10/pac12 merger the b10 is taking cal/stanford, usc/ucla, oregon/washington, and colorado.

by taking arizona they would have to force a rivalry between cu & zona whereas with utah they are a very natural fit for CU and longtime rival.

question: could utah's non AAU, and slightly weaker academics be enough to overcome for a b10 invite based on cultural ft alone?

Are you assuming they wouldn't include all 26 schools if they merged?

yes. the b10 is only taking 8 pac12 schools in this scenario

(03-27-2014 12:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 12:08 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 11:52 AM)john01992 Wrote:  academically how do these two schools compare?

endowment:
zona: $612 mill
utah: $668 mill

ARWU national/international
zona: 45/78
utah 47/85

USNRW
zona: 119
utah: 121

students total (postgrad)
zona: 31k (7,100)
utah: 32k (7,500)

AAU
zona

while zona has a clear academic advantage lets say during a hypothetical b10/pac12 merger the b10 is taking cal/stanford, usc/ucla, oregon/washington, and colorado.

by taking arizona they would have to force a rivalry between cu & zona whereas with utah they are a very natural fit for CU and longtime rival.

question: could utah's non AAU, and slightly weaker academics be enough to overcome for a b10 invite based on cultural ft alone?

Are you assuming they wouldn't include all 26 schools if they merged?

yes. the b10 is only taking 8 pac12 schools in this scenario

That leaves them with 22 schools. That's a quirky number. What's the motivation for such a deal?

(03-27-2014 12:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 12:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 12:08 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 11:52 AM)john01992 Wrote:  academically how do these two schools compare?

endowment:
zona: $612 mill
utah: $668 mill

ARWU national/international
zona: 45/78
utah 47/85

USNRW
zona: 119
utah: 121

students total (postgrad)
zona: 31k (7,100)
utah: 32k (7,500)

AAU
zona

while zona has a clear academic advantage lets say during a hypothetical b10/pac12 merger the b10 is taking cal/stanford, usc/ucla, oregon/washington, and colorado.

by taking arizona they would have to force a rivalry between cu & zona whereas with utah they are a very natural fit for CU and longtime rival.

question: could utah's non AAU, and slightly weaker academics be enough to overcome for a b10 invite based on cultural ft alone?

Are you assuming they wouldn't include all 26 schools if they merged?

yes. the b10 is only taking 8 pac12 schools in this scenario

That leaves them with 22 schools. That's a quirky number. What's the motivation for such a deal?

-gaining access to western recruiting area's to make up for the dwindling recruiting in the midwest

-putting more pressure on notre dame to join by acquiring stanford/USC

-gaining a much needed athletic boost by acquiring the most competitive schools of a terrific football conference

-making the b10 a truly national conference with all 4 time zones

-more leverage in tv negotiations

The academic numbers are virtually identical, and I think if you look back historically Utah's are on more of an upswing than Arizona's. I would call the academics a wash and look at market. Phoenix is a much bigger market than the Wasatch front but the Wasatch front is larger than Tucson. The question is whether Arizona can capture the Phoenix market. If ASU is demoted in whatever scenario you're imagining, then yes. If ASU is still in the same division, I'd take Utah instead of Arizona.

(03-27-2014 01:47 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The academic numbers are virtually identical, and I think if you look back historically Utah's are on more of an upswing than Arizona's. I would call the academics a wash and look at market. Phoenix is a much bigger market than the Wasatch front but the Wasatch front is larger than Tucson. The question is whether Arizona can capture the Phoenix market. If ASU is demoted in whatever scenario you're imagining, then yes. If ASU is still in the same division, I'd take Utah instead of Arizona.

You can rest assured if either or both Arizona schools are left as "free agents" by a hypothetical B1G/Pac12 merger that within a week the Big XII is having a press conference announcing their membership.

From what I hear from PAC folks on this board, Washington State and Oregon State have the full support and backing of Washington, Oregon, and the California schools now and forevermore. I don't foresee them left behind in any scenario since half the league is squarely on their side. With that in mind, combining with the entire PAC makes more sense to me from all standpoints. It would even be a contiguous states conference to boot.

(03-27-2014 03:19 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  From what I hear from PAC folks on this board, Washington State and Oregon State have the full support and backing of Washington, Oregon, and the California schools now and forevermore. I don't foresee them left behind in any scenario since half the league is squarely on their side. With that in mind, combining with the entire PAC makes more sense to me from all standpoints. It would even be a contiguous states conference to boot.

the 4 cali schools + washington ditched the pac in the past. so there is no guarantee's of loyalty.

one thing that gets overlooked is that USC/UCLA lost out on conference realignment a lot more than most realize. they were forcibly removed of their unequal revenue sharing model AND the pac12 BB tourny being in LA. Their "all california" division never happened and the cali schools were broken up. these three things that they fought very hard against and were outvoted on. These changes were masterminded in large part by washington state. it is documented that USC/UCLA threatened to leave over some of these changes in private league discussions.

You can rest assured if either or both Arizona schools are left as "free agents" by a hypothetical B1G/Pac12 merger that within a week the Big XII is having a press conference announcing their membership.
[/quote]
The hypothetical PAC12 fracture proposed by the OP would be a big opportunity for the BigXii no matter which four are left behind.

(03-27-2014 05:53 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 02:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

You can rest assured if either or both Arizona schools are left as "free agents" by a hypothetical B1G/Pac12 merger that within a week the Big XII is having a press conference announcing their membership.

The hypothetical PAC12 fracture proposed by the OP would be a big opportunity for the BigXii no matter which four are left behind.
[/quote]

is this scenario the acc & b12 don't exist both of which are further gobbled up by the sec/b10.

baylor, ISU, tcu, wsu, osu, utah, & ASU get left behind.

U. of Az is not getting left behind-- there are a TON of folks from B-10-Land in the state. In fact, I rather suspect they were instrumental due to demographic shifts by the late 70s in getting the Az schools into the Pac...

(03-27-2014 05:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  is this scenario the acc & b12 don't exist both of which are further gobbled up by the sec/b10.

baylor, ISU, tcu, wsu, osu, utah, & ASU get left behind.

Is this an incomplete list of left behind? If one were to have the unrestricted ability to drop 7 P5 schools out from the "haves" I don't think these would be the 7 as it would be hard to value a number of other schools ahead of ASU (Texas Tech, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Syracuse, Rutgers, BC, WF, WV come to mind). If you're looking at minimum numbers for dissolution of the PAC, BigXii, and ACC, I think you'd clearly have a few ACC schools left out as well.

(03-27-2014 07:06 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 05:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  is this scenario the acc & b12 don't exist both of which are further gobbled up by the sec/b10.

baylor, ISU, tcu, wsu, osu, utah, & ASU get left behind.

Is this an incomplete list of left behind? If one were to have the unrestricted ability to drop 7 P5 schools out from the "haves" I don't think these would be the 7 as it would be hard to value a number of other schools ahead of ASU (Texas Tech, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Syracuse, Rutgers, BC, WF, WV come to mind). If you're looking at minimum numbers for dissolution of the PAC, BigXii, and ACC, I think you'd clearly have a few ACC schools left out as well.

the list is complete, but you are absolutely correct, those are by no means the 7 weakest p5 schools.

it came down to geography. ASU is better than other schools that are "in" especially (but not limited to) Ttech, wvu, & ksu. however from a geography standpoint it was very hard to include them.

i wanted to build a big ten that included colorado, & notre dame as part of a western division. with WA, UO, zona, & the cali 4 you didn't have much room to add more schools. i consider UO/zona to both be below b10 academic standards (no offense). UO with their amazing athletics, wealth, and partnership with WA is what gets them in. zona is a school I plucked in there to give the conference an even number but i also liked their population, aau membership, flagship status, stadium upgrades, and very strong football program. these schools got into my hypothetical b10 only because they had enough athletic/market success to overcome their academic shortcomings. ASU/utah didn't have enough to warrant a b10 invite. utah came close but they lost out to zona.

my sec was basically a 30 team remake of the southern with a couple of b12 schools in there. arizona st. or iowa st. would of been an outlier in that conference hence the reason they were not included.

wake forest/nc state/wvu got in because there is no way IMO that you a conference can secure uva, duke, & unc without them. plus for divisional purposes i needed them in there rather than to have to pluck three "core" sec schools and break them from their other sec rivalries. that division consists of wvu, vtech, uva, duke, WF, ncsu, clemson, Scar, and vandy. I already had to force two SEC schools in there, didn't want to have to force 3 more. I kept the biggest sec brands (TN, FL, bama, auburn, georgia, kentucky), & their in-state ACC rivals together hence the reason louisville is in. arky, the MS schools, & LSU are with the texahoma + kansas state.

when it comes to the northern part of the acc. i put them in the b10 (28 teams) as part of an eastern division built around PSU. it includes psu + 5 northeastern schools plus nebraska, kansas, & missouri. I really wanted to pair up nebraska-PSU while keeping each of those schools regional rivals.

the eastern psu & western notre dame division have 8 teams while the midwest division has the 10 original b10 members. the east & west play a semi rotating cross division which allows notre dame to have its usc/stanford rivals while maintaining its relationships with syracuse, BC, & pitt. and USC can continue playing on the east coast something they have done in the past.

(03-27-2014 08:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 07:06 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  [quote='john01992' pid='10607920' dateline='1395961002']
If you're looking at minimum numbers for dissolution of the PAC, BigXii, and ACC, I think you'd clearly have a few ACC schools left out as well.

the list is complete, but you are absolutely correct, those are by no means the 7 weakest p5 schools.

This seems like an excessively messy way to arrive at two super-super conferences, and it would have more than a few state legislatures up in arms. If you start with the mergers and dissolution of the BigXii I think there's an easier path that leaves out either 0/1 current P5 school and adds a few borderline schools.
1) the B1G and PAC merge (26 teams) while the ACC and SEC merge (28 teams plus ND affiliation).
2) the BigXii dissolves.
3) the 8 BigXii state schools join the B1G/PAC (now at 34).
4) the BigPac adds two schools, Hawaii and New Mexico, to form four contiguous divisions each with 9 schools with generally preserved historical rivalries.
East (Great Lakes): UMD, WVU, RU, PSU, OSU, Michigan, MSU, IU, Purdue
North (Great Plains): UI, NW, Wisconsin, MN, Iowa, ISU, KSU, KU, Nebraska
South (Southwest): UT, TTU, OU, OSU, UNM, CU, UU, ASU, Arizona
West (Pacific): HI, USC, UCLA, Furd, Cal, UO, OSU, UW, WSU
5) the SEC/ACC adds TCU, Baylor, UConn, and Cincinnati. Omit one of these four if ND joins full time. Divisions of 8 depend on ND.

(03-27-2014 09:03 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 08:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 07:06 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  [quote='john01992' pid='10607920' dateline='1395961002']
If you're looking at minimum numbers for dissolution of the PAC, BigXii, and ACC, I think you'd clearly have a few ACC schools left out as well.

the list is complete, but you are absolutely correct, those are by no means the 7 weakest p5 schools.

This seems like an excessively messy way to arrive at two super-super conferences, and it would have more than a few state legislatures up in arms. If you start with the mergers and dissolution of the BigXii I think there's an easier path that leaves out either 0/1 current P5 school and adds a few borderline schools.
1) the B1G and PAC merge (26 teams) while the ACC and SEC merge (28 teams plus ND affiliation).
2) the BigXii dissolves.
3) the 8 BigXii state schools join the B1G/PAC (now at 34).
4) the BigPac adds two schools, Hawaii and New Mexico, to form four contiguous divisions each with 9 schools with generally preserved historical rivalries.
East (Great Lakes): UMD, WVU, RU, PSU, OSU, Michigan, MSU, IU, Purdue
North (Great Plains): UI, NW, Wisconsin, MN, Iowa, ISU, KSU, KU, Nebraska
South (Southwest): UT, TTU, OU, OSU, UNM, CU, UU, ASU, Arizona
West (Pacific): HI, USC, UCLA, Furd, Cal, UO, OSU, UW, WSU
5) the SEC/ACC adds TCU, Baylor, UConn, and Cincinnati. Omit one of these four if ND joins full time. Divisions of 8 depend on ND.

completely agree, it is at best a fun hypothetical.

but if you want to give it a nice spin of how it will play out.......

it starts with the b10 & a few pac schools opting that it is in their best interests to join up. that is what starts the chain reaction.

legislators from the south will be extremely happy with this, only texas (over baylor/tcu) being a problem. that is easily fixable because you can kick out KSU for one of them. however the texahoma almost ditched baylor twice in the past 4 years without the politicians raising enough fuss to stop it. politicians from the states of OK, FL, KY, SC, NC, VA, WV, NC, Missouri, & PA would be HUGE proponents of this plan as it puts their state schools in much better positions.

KS, CO, CA, NY, and the majority of b10 states will have mixed reactions. the only states with something to lose are IA, CT, AZ, OR, & WA which is very small in the think of things.

if this is something that can happen slowly....say the b10 raids just the pac and the sec just the b12 then wait for the fire to die down then go after the acc ==> it's a lot more probable.

i built my hypothetical around what the conferences want, not what the politicians want. wvu would never get a b10 invite and neither will new mexico. at the end of the day the b10/sec will only do what they want. politicians may stop them, but only under the most extreme circumstance will a politician actually force a conference to add a certain school.

(03-27-2014 09:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i built my hypothetical around what the conferences want, not what the politicians want. wvu would never get a b10 invite and neither will new mexico. at the end of the day the b10/sec will only do what they want. politicians may stop them, but only under the most extreme circumstance will a politician actually force a conference to add a certain school.

1) when did the B1G find itself in a position to raid the PAC? the conferences are on fairly equal footing, and demographic changes favor continued growth of the PAC region and continued decline of the B1G region (hell, I'm part of that trend personally Univ of Illinois---> Univ of Utah----> University of Arizona).
2) I'm thinking of these megaconferences as a media deals with some retention of the separate PAC and B1G identities. The brands are certainly strong enough that both would be retained as divisions even if the conferences merged.

The B1G, in effect, would take ISU, KSU, Kansas, and WVU to get Texas and California markets and fixed relationships with their flagship institutions. The network distribution across all US time zones with some penetration of Asian markets via Hawaii would make WVU a very easy pill to swallow. Besides, WV chose the north in their other momentus decision, so the Yankee conference sort of owes them one :)

On the flip side, the PAC, who already approved the Texahoma 4, would add UNM and HI, neither of which are particularly objectionable to PAC standards, in order to glue the PAC to Texahoma in case of UNM and to gain some exposure into Asia with HI. The additions don't really make sense individually for the PAC or B1G conferences, but provide all schools involved with the best opportunity for a truly global media presence, which seems to be where this is headed. Add in the ability of the BigPac and SEC/ACC to breakaway, and there are a lot of incentives involved in these moves.

PS: the PAC also has outright network ownership which would be a more attractive framework for building this media behemoth, and might actually incentivize the dissolution (strictly on paper) of the B1G rather than the PAC in this hypothetical merger.

(03-27-2014 09:50 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i built my hypothetical around what the conferences want, not what the politicians want. wvu would never get a b10 invite and neither will new mexico. at the end of the day the b10/sec will only do what they want. politicians may stop them, but only under the most extreme circumstance will a politician actually force a conference to add a certain school.

1) when did the B1G find itself in a position to raid the PAC? the conferences are on fairly equal footing, and demographic changes favor continued growth of the PAC region and continued decline of the B1G region (hell, I'm part of that trend personally Univ of Illinois---> Univ of Utah----> University of Arizona).
2) I'm thinking of these megaconferences as a media deals with some retention of the separate PAC and B1G identities. The brands are certainly strong enough that both would be retained as divisions even if the conferences merged.

The B1G, in effect, would take ISU, KSU, Kansas, and WVU to get Texas and California markets and fixed relationships with their flagship institutions. The network distribution across all US time zones with some penetration of Asian markets via Hawaii would make WVU a very easy pill to swallow. Besides, WV chose the north in their other momentus decision, so the Yankee conference sort of owes them one :)

On the flip side, the PAC, who already approved the Texahoma 4, would add UNM and HI, neither of which are particularly objectionable to PAC standards, in order to glue the PAC to Texahoma in case of UNM and to gain some exposure into Asia with HI. The additions don't really make sense individually for the PAC or B1G conferences, but provide all schools involved with the best opportunity for a truly global media presence, which seems to be where this is headed. Add in the ability of the BigPac and SEC/ACC to breakaway, and there are a lot of incentives involved in these moves.

1. it comes down to meeting each others needs. the pac12 is getting killed viewership wise with their less than ideal conference network, and lack of a presence in the 2 eastern time zones. the pac knows that they are at a geographical disadvantage and that was why they were so aggressive trying to gain the texahoma. when you look at all the stats It is very hard to argue that the pac12 is in fact at a disadvantage when it comes to viewership/attendance and not on par with the sec/b10.

the b10 has a big presence in the eastern time zones and has huge fanbases and lots of tv viewers. on top of that they have the best conference network and the most money. the b10s needs seem to be exactly what those 8 pac12 schools strengths are.
-a stronger presence in western time zones
-very strong in non revenue sports
-strong academic/athletic combo
-strong recruiting grounds
-terrific football teams

2. while the b10 would "suck it up a lil" on certain schools to obtain texas , the cali-4 and notre dame. you are talking about way too many schools for the b10 to add. in other words: the cost is too high. remember even OU & okie st. would have trouble getting in let alone, ksu, wvu & Ttech.

It is my opinion that mizz, KU, & nebraska are the absolute bare minimum for how weak a school can be academically and warrant an b10 invite. so adding in oregon st. wsu, utah, zona, asu, ou, okie st. ISU, ksu, tech, & wvu is seriously pushing it. we are talking about 11 "below b10 standards" schools here.JMO

3. you setup is good. the only problem I have with it is that cu, uu, zona, & asu would have an absolute sh*tfit if they get locked out of the cali-4.

I like to keep divisions as small as possible to get more cross division games. id rather drop hawaii, new mexico, ISU & ksu if it meant those divisions could have 2 additional cross division games.

only reason i have divisions of 8/9/10 is because id rather keep a large group of schools going round robin and retain the original sec/b10 schools in their original 10 team states.

(03-27-2014 10:00 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  PS: the PAC also has outright network ownership which would be a more attractive framework for building this media behemoth, and might actually incentivize the dissolution (strictly on paper) of the B1G rather than the PAC in this hypothetical merger.

i go to colorado bro. i got the BTN in my dorm room freshman year on the schools basic cable package. there is no way the b10 should give up an asset like that. and fyi the P12 network has been having less than ideal viewership numbers.