(02-09-2017 10:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 05:51 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Probably he meant academics which is true.

Yes, academics.

On Athletic finances, Oklahoma St. would be near the top of the Pac 12.

Well even just financially, period.

If you take away the "mega schools" in the PAC (Washington, and the California's), OK St would be right up with the rest of them in terms of money.

-DawgnBama - I'm not sure about OSU but I do know living here in Seattle that WSU plays one game every year at Century Link Field ( home to the Seahawks).

-Everyone else- The PAC has been on the short end of the financial stick as long as I have been alive and will continue to be until a) the population increases to the same levels of the east coast, or b) the networks succeed in professionalizing college football.

IMO the long game of the networks is to turn college football into a minor league for the NFL. So until they (ESPN and FOX) can rid themselves of the g5 in order to get a P5 only system, you will have inconsistencies in pay out between the conferences.

Most of people's criticisms towards the PAC are spot on, academic snobbery, lower population, and a serious lack of butts in seats all contribute to their smaller AD budgets and problems with network distribution. So it's no wonder the PAC12'S money comes up short.

It's all old news. The only reason people talk about it now is because of the ungodly amount of money schools in the B1G and SEC are making (bubble???).

I believe in the long term the PAC will be fine. Their geography game is to strong

In 15-20 years I think we will have a separate P5 division with somewhere between 65-75 teams all under one negotiated tv contract for all schools. The payouts may not be completely equal( might be performance based) but it will be closer.

Maybe I'm right maybe I'm wrong but no matter what it will be entertaining to watch in the coming years.

I meant Academics.

R1 Carnegie Research level is a minimum requirement. Every P12, B1G and ACC school is R1 (save legacy Wake Forest, the luckiest dog ever to be in FBS -- they don't qualify on any metric). Also 13 of 14 B1G, and 8 of 12 P12 are AAU schools. Even 5 of the 15 ACC are AAU, with Miami regarded as the most likely to achieve that status next. Even the SEC in expansion added two R1 AAU schools in Missouri and Texas A&M.

Presidents and Chancellors determine members. When the Big 12 when they did their charade expansion, eliminated all the weaker academic schools ... leaving academic powerhouses and athletic basket cases Tulane and Rice in.

The reality is a R2 Research school will never be admitted to the P12 or B1G or ACC, and probably not the SEC. Less selective R1 schools like Kansas State and West Virginia are not considered much better; although if Louisville is the ACC cut line both West Virginia or Cincinnati could in theory make that cut. But I don't see an ACC need. More likely they

For the B1G and Pac-12 the cut line is somewhere between Utah/Nebraska and Colorado/Rutgers. Oklahoma and Kansas make that line. Iowa State makes that cut line, but the B1G does not need two Iowa schools (only chance I see is attached to three schools going to P12). Texas Christian (only a R2 school, but Dallas and very high selectivity) and Texas Tech (terrible location but R1) are sitting kind of on the edge of acceptable, but only as a complimentary school with Texas in some package --- Texas + Oklahoma package trumps all others.

The academic (research really, since it's the faculty they are concerned with) cut line is why Oklahoma State is a non-starter. They will be one of 6 to 8 schools left behind if/when Texas and Oklahoma leave. T Boone Pickens can't buy OSU into another conference anymore than FedEx can buy Memphis into a power conference.

The Pac-12 will be fine in the long term. It's the only P5 that completely controls its region and time zones but the demographics will always be different than the South and Midwest. It's usually a wine and cheese crowd, outdoorsy and usually pay more attention to Olympic sports. Just look at its cities: L.A., Bay Area, Seattle, Portland, Denver, Phoenix and Salt Lake City (and just for expansion argument, the one city that has a West Coast feel is Austin, home to the University of Texas). Schools like USC will always have advantages due to their history, prestige and California recruiting even if they make $15 million less than Minnesota and Kentucky. Their path to the CFP is easier because of those circumstances rather than making less or more money with the likes of Purdue and South Carolina.

I remember growing up in California how baseball, women's tennis, soccer, etc got support while here in Texas it was just football, football and more football.

(02-09-2017 11:59 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 10:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 05:51 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Probably he meant academics which is true.

Yes, academics.

On Athletic finances, Oklahoma St. would be near the top of the Pac 12.

Well even just financially, period.

If you take away the "mega schools" in the PAC (Washington, and the California's), OK St would be right up with the rest of them in terms of money.

(02-09-2017 05:56 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The Pac-12 will be fine in the long term. It's the only P5 that completely controls its region and time zones but the demographics will always be different than the South and Midwest. It's usually a wine and cheese crowd, outdoorsy and usually pay more attention to Olympic sports. Just look at its cities: L.A., Bay Area, Seattle, Portland, Denver, Phoenix and Salt Lake City (and just for expansion argument, the one city that has a West Coast feel is Austin, home to the University of Texas). Schools like USC will always have advantages due to their history, prestige and California recruiting even if they make $15 million less than Minnesota and Kentucky. Their path to the CFP is easier because of those circumstances rather than making less or more money with the likes of Purdue and South Carolina.

I remember growing up in California how baseball, women's tennis, soccer, etc got support while here in Texas it was just football, football and more football.

This is 100% correct. I live in the Bay Area.

There is another demographic issue. After living here for decades, I was almost shocked when I visited my brother in Denver (he moved there a couple years ago) at how white it is. I am used to California which is barely 40% white (counting the inland farming counties) and only 4-5% African American (and most of that is concentrated in a few neighborhoods). This is why with 65% more people than Texas, and 175% more people than Florida we have a smaller 5* and 4* recruiting zone than those States. If you total the number of White and Black HS kids you realize we have many fewer prospects to draw from than our population suggests. No shock so many schools have dropped football. The Asians we have are not those big Tongans and Hawaiians, but Indians, Chinese, and Vietnamese who produce very few football players. Our Hispanic and all the European Engineer families are soccer focused, the Indian immigrants Cricket (we have a thriving Cricket league in Santa Clara County, rivaling baseball for field use). Lacrosse is very popular, as kids are finding parents who wont let them play Football allow them to play a game where they get a stick a helmet and are allowed to hit people. We produce a ton of swimmers, volleyball, water polo, surfers, and tennis players. And women participate in much larger numbers (fewer cheerleaders more players).

We are also pro Sports fans here. More like NYC or Boston. College Sports struggle mightily for fans. Why watch UCLA Basketball when you can watch the Clippers or Lakers? Why watch Cal Football when you can watch the Raiders? College sports do not get any local town fans, unlike the Midwest and South. You live and die on alumni, which means all those commuter schools can't draw stink. The weird thing is HS sports are better supported than college -- but that is probably because every other family has a child playing in some sport in HS. It is totally different from what I remember growing up in Columbus suburb.

Yes, my brother's wife tells me Austin is California in Texas. Austin felt like home when I visited for my uncle's funeral (he retired to Austin after living in the East Bay) a couple years back. Much more so than Denver (too much Midwest and Texas/Oklahoma culture, but some Californian -- a real cross roads of east an west; I miss having a big basement)

(02-07-2017 10:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 09:00 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  When did the PAC ever make as much revenue as the Big 10 and SEC? I say never. They still get to play at the same level, just like the ACC.

I think that's a great point, and was trying to argue something similar in post #2.

I just don't see how schools like Oregon or USC are going to allow even a $15M gap in conference distribution to make it impossible for them to compete with programs like Alabama, Michigan, Ohio St, etc. on the field.

They'll hire big name head coaches for the same salaries, they'll spend the same, and they'll give their teams every bit of same footing as those major programs east of the Mississippi, to win the national title.

(02-07-2017 09:22 PM)orangefan Wrote:  partner with someone able to bring more leverage to distribution negotiations.

It seems Scott's long play is to hope that it only takes 10-15 years for the "distribution" portion of the system to be completely turned on its head.

Bison, you do realize that Oklahoma State earned in total revenue last year 87 million plus for their athletic department. That means they were virtually on par with South Carolina of the SEC, ahead of most of the schools in the ACC, about middle of the road for the Big 10, and well ahead of the bottom half of the PAC and in the upper 1/3 to 1/4 of the PAC.

Furthermore, the Big 12 will be paying out 4 million more this year and the PAC will be earning about the same.

You can claim just on your opinion that Southern Cal and Washington won't let themselves fall behind by 15 million, but when compared to the upper third of the Big 10 and the top half of the SEC they are just about there now. This time next year they will likely be 15 million behind the Big 10 and 13-14 million behind the SEC in TV revenue and they danged sure aren't making up the gap in attendance, ticket costs, concessions, and athletic donations.

So take a breather, google the facts, analyze them, and then reply with something besides moving positions designed to keep needless arguments going. The PAC is definitely falling behind and compared to the top two earning conferences it's going to be ugly real fast. And, Oklahoma State has consistently been in the top 25 to 35 in revenue annually depending upon donor money. And, in 2015 they almost averaged 60,000 a game. That's a number fewer and fewer PAC schools see in attendance.

If present trends continue the Big 10 and SEC will outdistance most of the rest of the conferences by 10 million within a few years. It won't cause the collapse of the ACC because historically they spend less and earn less on athletics. It won't cause the collapse of the PAC because they are isolated and content. It will begin to edge closer to 10 million in difference to the Big 12 which is currently about 6 million behind minus their individual T3 deals which still leaves Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas either on par, or ahead of most in the Big 10 and SEC in TV revenue. But, their window for keeping pace is closing if not already closed. They are limited in content, and have no new markets. Should Texas or Oklahoma or both decide to head to either the Big 10 or SEC, or one to each of them, the gap will jump past 15 million with regards to the PAC and ACC and that will be the destabilizing factor moving forward.

Now that's the long and short of it.

Oklahoma State athletics and financing will be fine. They slot in with Southern schools of so-so Academics. I don't question they being in a power conference anymore than I do Auburn, Mississippi State, Alabama, West Virginia or Kansas State.

But for the same reason Memphis and Boise State wont ever make a power conference, Oklahoma State wont be offered B1G, SEC, ACC or P12 membership.

The list of power schools that are in the only conference they can ever be in is large, probably 40% of all P5 schools. Who would ever offer Washington State, Utah, Purdue, Mississippi State, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Baylor, or Kansas State a power conference spot if they didn't already have it? It's not an insult to say you are among those 30 power schools who are stuck in the conference they are in for as long as it lasts.

And I think that is the issue, fans take that as an insult when it's not.

(02-09-2017 06:49 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Oklahoma State athletics and financing will be fine. They slot in with Southern schools of so-so Academics. I don't question they being in a power conference anymore than I do Auburn, Mississippi State, Alabama, West Virginia or Kansas State.

But for the same reason Memphis and Boise State wont ever make a power conference, Oklahoma State wont be offered B1G, SEC, ACC or P12 membership.

The list of power schools that are in the only conference they can ever be in is large, probably 40% of all P5 schools. Who would ever offer Washington State, Utah, Purdue, Mississippi State, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Baylor, or Kansas State a power conference spot if they didn't already have it? It's not an insult to say you are among those 30 power schools who are stuck in the conference they are in for as long as it lasts.

And I think that is the issue, fans take that as an insult when it's not.

The closer the Big 12 gets to the end of the GOR the more likely it is that many of their current 10 schools will get left behind. The Baylor thing is interesting. Kick Baylor out, or remove their voting status and suddenly it only takes 7 votes for dissolution. If they can't agree on a replacement in the event of expulsion the TV contract might be voided by the networks. Those chances are slim, but they probably represent the last opportunity for T.C.U., Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State or perhaps even West Virginia to get back into a P conference upon collapse of the Big 12.

If however, Texas heads elsewhere other than the SEC, the possibility, ever how unpalatable to some in the conference, is that Oklahoma State wouldn't be a bad travel companion for the Sooners should they head our way. It would be a double dip into the DFW market, and sure the academics of the Cowboys is not preferable for a conference looking to enhance its own, but they do earn money, put butts in the seats, and travel well within their region. Should West Virginia get picked up by the ACC and Kansas head off to the Big 10 who else would have the economic credentials of OSU?

So while your chances may not be optimal, the possibility of a landing spot is not yet gone.

(02-09-2017 11:59 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 10:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 05:51 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Probably he meant academics which is true.

Yes, academics.

On Athletic finances, Oklahoma St. would be near the top of the Pac 12.

Well even just financially, period.

If you take away the "mega schools" in the PAC (Washington, and the California's), OK St would be right up with the rest of them in terms of money.

OkSU is right up there with Washington, UCLA, and CAL already.
23 Washington Pac-12 $103,540,117 $104,403,253 $3,895,000 3.76
25 UCLA Pac-12 $96,912,767 $96,912,767 $2,668,512 2.75
26 Oklahoma State Big 12 $95,931,739 $93,144,396 $7,795,211 8.13
37 California Pac-12 $85,539,904 $94,016,545 $1,252,719 1.46

AD revenue the last 10 years. OkSU is the richest by a wide margin as in a couple years worth of revenue. Imagine what having 2 extra years of revenue over a 10 year period can do.
OkSU 1.08 Billion
Washington 775 Million
CAl 765 Million
UCLA 760 Million

PAC is falling behind even the little brothers in the Big 12. Another example is KSU and ISU are richer than Colorado and Utah. Kansas is another AD who would be among the richest in the PAC if they joined.

PAC also averages 7k less fans per FB game than the Big 12. Over a season that is a lot of revenue.

(02-09-2017 05:51 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I meant Academics.

R1 Carnegie Research level is a minimum requirement. Every P12, B1G and ACC school is R1 (save legacy Wake Forest, the luckiest dog ever to be in FBS -- they don't qualify on any metric). Also 13 of 14 B1G, and 8 of 12 P12 are AAU schools. Even 5 of the 15 ACC are AAU, with Miami regarded as the most likely to achieve that status next. Even the SEC in expansion added two R1 AAU schools in Missouri and Texas A&M.

Presidents and Chancellors determine members. When the Big 12 when they did their charade expansion, eliminated all the weaker academic schools ... leaving academic powerhouses and athletic basket cases Tulane and Rice in.

The reality is a R2 Research school will never be admitted to the P12 or B1G or ACC, and probably not the SEC. Less selective R1 schools like Kansas State and West Virginia are not considered much better; although if Louisville is the ACC cut line both West Virginia or Cincinnati could in theory make that cut. But I don't see an ACC need. More likely they

For the B1G and Pac-12 the cut line is somewhere between Utah/Nebraska and Colorado/Rutgers. Oklahoma and Kansas make that line. Iowa State makes that cut line, but the B1G does not need two Iowa schools (only chance I see is attached to three schools going to P12). Texas Christian (only a R2 school, but Dallas and very high selectivity) and Texas Tech (terrible location but R1) are sitting kind of on the edge of acceptable, but only as a complimentary school with Texas in some package --- Texas + Oklahoma package trumps all others.

The academic (research really, since it's the faculty they are concerned with) cut line is why Oklahoma State is a non-starter. They will be one of 6 to 8 schools left behind if/when Texas and Oklahoma leave. T Boone Pickens can't buy OSU into another conference anymore than FedEx can buy Memphis into a power conference.

People think there's enough fudge room here to squeeze in a school like Oklahoma State or TCU. There's not. Utah and Nebraska were tough sells academically to the PAC and B1G resectively. Since you mentioned those two pluc CU and Rutgers, here's how those four would rank in a BigXIV. Oklahoma, Kansas, and ISU (which are comparable to Nebraska on the big academic metrics) would get into the PAC or B1G in spite of their academics. Texas, in addition to being the only school that really changes the fiscal bottom line, is the only BigXII that would be invited because of its academics.

ARWU
1. Colorado (38)
2. Texas (44)
3. Rutgers (96)
4. Utah (100)
5. Iowa State (201-300)
Kansas (201-300)
Nebraska (201-300)
8. Oklahoma St (401-500)
Texas Tech (401-500)
10. TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma, WVU, KSU (unranked)

NSF
1. Texas (30)
2. Rutgers (33)
3. Utah (40)
4. Colorado (53)
5. Kansas (75)
6. Iowa State (77)
7. Nebraska (79)
8. Oklahoma (88)
9. KSU (106)
9. WVU (116)
10. TTU (118)
12. OkSU (134)
13. Baylor (247)
14. TCU (344)

(02-08-2017 04:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  Half the Pac 12 doesn't come close to UW, CU and the California schools.

That's true. Although it should be noted that 3/4 of the Big, all of the SEC, all of the BigXII, and 85% of the ACC don't compare to the top PAC schools.

(02-08-2017 04:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  Oklahoma St. is certainly on a par with WSU and Pac 12 OSU.

Oregon State (ARWU 151-200, NSF 86) measures up pretty well with Kansas, Iowa State, and Nebraska and is substantially ahead of Oklahoma State academically.

(02-09-2017 05:56 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Schools like USC will always have advantages due to their history, prestige and California recruiting even if they make $15 million less than Minnesota and Kentucky.

They're not making $15 million less, though. They're just getting $15 million less from their conference. That's hardly the only revenue input line on the athletic dept's balance sheet.

(02-09-2017 06:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You can claim just on your opinion that Southern Cal and Washington won't let themselves fall behind by 15 million, but when compared to the upper third of the Big 10 and the top half of the SEC they are just about there now.

A school needs to spend X, scaled for cost of living and other factors dependent on the location, to have a level footing to win the national championship in FBS football.

Washington's X might need to be higher than Alabama's or Clemson's X.


My point is that the top nationally competitive football teams in the PAC are going to spend that X, regardless how much the PAC conference is giving to them relative to what the other conferences give their respective schools.

(02-09-2017 08:42 PM)p23570 Wrote:  OkSU is right up there with Washington, UCLA, and CAL already.
23 Washington Pac-12 $103,540,117 $104,403,253 $3,895,000 3.76
25 UCLA Pac-12 $96,912,767 $96,912,767 $2,668,512 2.75
26 Oklahoma State Big 12 $95,931,739 $93,144,396 $7,795,211 8.13
37 California Pac-12 $85,539,904 $94,016,545 $1,252,719 1.46

I'm talking about total money, for the university. Endowment, total budget, research spending, etc.

Sure, you can look at athletic dept total reported revenues, but those are peanuts compared to the total money picture.

(02-10-2017 03:14 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People think there's enough fudge room here to squeeze in a school like Oklahoma State or TCU. There's not. Utah and Nebraska were tough sells academically to the PAC and B1G respectively. Since you mentioned those two pluc CU and Rutgers, here's how those four would rank in a BigXIV. Oklahoma, Kansas, and ISU (which are comparable to Nebraska on the big academic metrics) would get into the PAC or B1G in spite of their academics. Texas, in addition to being the only school that really changes the fiscal bottom line, is the only BigXII that would be invited because of its academics.

Ranking schools based on "Academics" is as made up garbage as ranking high school football players and giving them stars.

Nothing but a beauty pageant and reputation pageant.


What actually matters is research. Rutgers is a monster in that area, easily fitting in with the Big Ten. Utah is not bad, either. Colorado is very good.

Most of the Big 12 schools, other than Texas and formerly TA&M and Colorado, were not good. Kansas is pretty good, Iowa St is OK but no medical. Nebraska was/is not good. But if it combines the Omaha med/health science campus under Lincoln, it would get up to Kansas level.

(02-10-2017 09:17 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Oregon State (ARWU 151-200, NSF 86) measures up pretty well with Kansas, Iowa State, and Nebraska and is substantially ahead of Oklahoma State academically.

Oregon is pretty low on research, but I would argue that it should merge the Oregon Health/Sci Univ under Eugene. That would be a nice boost.

You don't add a bottom school academically. Fans of weak academic schools look at a conference and say "we are almost as good as your worst, so take us." But Presidents & Chancellors look for school well above their worst, closer to the middle if they must, at the top preferably; new schools must upgrade the research and academic level of the conference.

No public school that has not achieved Carnegie R1 Research University category can even hope to be offered membership to another conference (exception is probably Alabama, but they are not going anywhere, so you can't test that). It is even hard for a private school, although highly selective privates can overcome a lower research rating; witness TCU, Baylor, and perhaps down the road BYU (I don't include Wake Forest, as they are an "ancient" legacy member of the ACC, who know they won the lottery).

Make your case all you want to fans, Boise State and San Diego State fans do that all the time, but you are not going to get anywhere with the UW and UC Chancellors, nor the Presidents of Stanford and USC. They are the ones that count. Nobody in the Pac-12 academia would ever leave a leadership position for a similar one at Oklahoma State. And that in fact is probably the best question to ask when looking whether power conference Presidents and Chancellor would consider a school, how many of them would consider the same post at your school? If you are Rice or Tulane the answer is a bunch of B12 leaders would jump at it. If you are Memphis or ECU the answer is no, and that explains those cuts by the B12. When you look at the P12, they see 4 B12 schools of some status (TCU perhaps a "think about it"): KU, ISU, OU, Texas. Same for the B1G, ACC and SEC.

Oklahoma State is not going anywhere, and they wont get any offers.

Endowments mean jack S in realignment. It's always funny when the folks who have poor AD's change the subject to endowments. The old fallback.

The ACC has some really elite schools as well and when they added someone the riches AD got the opportunity (Louisville), not the school with the bigger endowment (UConn).

Rice has a 4 Billion $ endowment in C-USA. Like I said it doesn't' mean S.

The reality is the PAC is already behind in $ compared to the rest of the p-5. They lack financial support from boosters, they lack ticket sales, and they lack income from the PACN. Attendance is 7k per game below the Big 12 already which adds up to a bundle over a season. Basketball is atrocious.

(02-10-2017 05:12 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  You don't add a bottom school academically. Fans of weak academic schools look at a conference and say "we are almost as good as your worst, so take us." But Presidents & Chancellors look for school well above their worst, closer to the middle if they must, at the top preferably; new schools must upgrade the research and academic level of the conference.

No public school that has not achieved Carnegie R1 Research University category can even hope to be offered membership to another conference (exception is probably Alabama, but they are not going anywhere, so you can't test that). It is even hard for a private school, although highly selective privates can overcome a lower research rating; witness TCU, Baylor, and perhaps down the road BYU (I don't include Wake Forest, as they are an "ancient" legacy member of the ACC, who know they won the lottery).

Make your case all you want to fans, Boise State and San Diego State fans do that all the time, but you are not going to get anywhere with the UW and UC Chancellors, nor the Presidents of Stanford and USC. They are the ones that count. Nobody in the Pac-12 academia would ever leave a leadership position for a similar one at Oklahoma State. And that in fact is probably the best question to ask when looking whether power conference Presidents and Chancellor would consider a school, how many of them would consider the same post at your school? If you are Rice or Tulane the answer is a bunch of B12 leaders would jump at it. If you are Memphis or ECU the answer is no, and that explains those cuts by the B12. When you look at the P12, they see 4 B12 schools of some status (TCU perhaps a "think about it"): KU, ISU, OU, Texas. Same for the B1G, ACC and SEC.

Oklahoma State is not going anywhere, and they wont get any offers.

I'm going to list some schools, please tell me which one doesn't' belong academically. Duke, UNC, Virginia, Louisville.

LOL. IF what you say is true Louisville would not be in the ACC. Do some research before you go running your mouth making a fool of yourself.

Louisville is by far the worst academic school in the ACC.

The B1G added the only non AAU member last round. And the Big 12 took WVU.

Nothing you said makes sense looking at the last round of realignment. nothing.

The reality is for everything the PAC has academically they lack financially and athletically. When Okie State is richer than most of the conference and has a better football resume that should tell you something about the strength of the conference.

KU and OU would own the PAC nearly every year just like the Big 12.

Louisville is an R1 school

That counts. The only conference that has extended offers to R2 schools is the Big 12. End of story.

As I said, argue all you want to fans. It is Chancellors and Presidents who decide. The Pac-12 will never take Oklahoma State. Nor will the SEC. You are in the same boat with Kansas State (another Louisville ... as is West Virginia).

If you are serious about joining another conference hire a half dozen nobel winners, and win $150m more in research federal grants each year. Then those UC Chancellors and their peers in Tempe, Boulder, Palo Alto and Seattle will come calling. Until then your P12 fantasy has as much chance of coming true as those guys in Provo and Boise.

(02-10-2017 12:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 05:56 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Schools like USC will always have advantages due to their history, prestige and California recruiting even if they make $15 million less than Minnesota and Kentucky.

They're not making $15 million less, though. They're just getting $15 million less from their conference. That's hardly the only revenue input line on the athletic dept's balance sheet.

(02-09-2017 06:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You can claim just on your opinion that Southern Cal and Washington won't let themselves fall behind by 15 million, but when compared to the upper third of the Big 10 and the top half of the SEC they are just about there now.

A school needs to spend X, scaled for cost of living and other factors dependent on the location, to have a level footing to win the national championship in FBS football.

Washington's X might need to be higher than Alabama's or Clemson's X.


My point is that the top nationally competitive football teams in the PAC are going to spend that X, regardless how much the PAC conference is giving to them relative to what the other conferences give their respective schools.

(02-09-2017 08:42 PM)p23570 Wrote:  OkSU is right up there with Washington, UCLA, and CAL already.
23 Washington Pac-12 $103,540,117 $104,403,253 $3,895,000 3.76
25 UCLA Pac-12 $96,912,767 $96,912,767 $2,668,512 2.75
26 Oklahoma State Big 12 $95,931,739 $93,144,396 $7,795,211 8.13
37 California Pac-12 $85,539,904 $94,016,545 $1,252,719 1.46

I'm talking about total money, for the university. Endowment, total budget, research spending, etc.

Sure, you can look at athletic dept total reported revenues, but those are peanuts compared to the total money picture.

(02-10-2017 03:14 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People think there's enough fudge room here to squeeze in a school like Oklahoma State or TCU. There's not. Utah and Nebraska were tough sells academically to the PAC and B1G respectively. Since you mentioned those two pluc CU and Rutgers, here's how those four would rank in a BigXIV. Oklahoma, Kansas, and ISU (which are comparable to Nebraska on the big academic metrics) would get into the PAC or B1G in spite of their academics. Texas, in addition to being the only school that really changes the fiscal bottom line, is the only BigXII that would be invited because of its academics.

Ranking schools based on "Academics" is as made up garbage as ranking high school football players and giving them stars.

Nothing but a beauty pageant and reputation pageant.


What actually matters is research. Rutgers is a monster in that area, easily fitting in with the Big Ten. Utah is not bad, either. Colorado is very good.

Most of the Big 12 schools, other than Texas and formerly TA&M and Colorado, were not good. Kansas is pretty good, Iowa St is OK but no medical. Nebraska was/is not good. But if it combines the Omaha med/health science campus under Lincoln, it would get up to Kansas level.

(02-10-2017 09:17 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Oregon State (ARWU 151-200, NSF 86) measures up pretty well with Kansas, Iowa State, and Nebraska and is substantially ahead of Oklahoma State academically.

Oregon is pretty low on research, but I would argue that it should merge the Oregon Health/Sci Univ under Eugene. That would be a nice boost.

I believe academics does play a role, but I believe research plays a role also. IMO, you can't ignore one and go with the other. You really have to look at both, and look at the situation that the institution is in.

I'll pick on Iowa State here, not that I hate the Cyclones or anything (actually, I kinda like the Cyclones, and wish them the best), but Iowa State illustrates my point pretty good. At Iowa State, the mission is two-fold: to help educate the people of Iowa and to provide assistance and to help out Iowa's farmers & ranchers. Because Iowa State is a land-grant school, they have to take in students that normally Iowa or other schools turn down. Also, although I could be wrong on this, and Cyclones fans feel free to correct me, because Iowa is predominantly rural state, the state doesn't really have the budget to give both Iowa & Iowa State a whole lot of research dollars. I would expect the same situation is true in Mississippi, and Mississippi could be in even worse shape than Iowa due to all the hurricanes and floods that have ravaged the state in the past decade. This is going to affect the amount of research that Iowa State is going to be able to do.

Now, I don't know how much research the Georgia Institute of Technology actually does, but I do know from others that it's pretty hard to get into, and stay enrolled until graduation, unless you're really good at math. To me, that automatically qualifies GT as a really good school academically, and that is coming from a fan of their biggest rival, UGa. To further prove my point about GT's academic excellence, consider that the Big Ten had them as an expansion candidate in the past. I don't think GT would have accepted, but the fact that the Big Ten was considering them, and considering that GT's AD isn't really anything legendary like Michigan or USC, that speaks volumes about GT's academic credentials.

Iowa State is an AAU school. That is based on a very high ratio of research grant dollars per faculty member.

I think Research actually ranks higher on the Chancellors and Presidents than student selectivity. And the reason is simple, it relates directly to the bottom line of the institutions in the conference. Athletics is pretty much it's own empire and so long as it doesn't cost the institution money, there is not much stink. But research partnerships in seeking grants are worth real money to the Academic side of the school. The B1G is exceptional here, but the raw take in grants easily triples that for athletics. And that goes 100% to the institution, meaning the deans, faculty and the chancellor, not the hired guns in the athletic department.

Yes you are right, Texas is the only school anybody is salivating over. If the Austin faculty were the ones deciding they would pick the Pac-12 in a landslide (Austin to Berkeley and Palo Alto ties are significant). Nobody else does in the B12 much for the guys running the Universities in the Pac-12, nor any of the other power conferences. Oklahoma is enough of a brand that they can "Nebraska it" into a another conference. The only hope any of the others have is to be a complimentary pick. And nobody cares about the power rankings of that pick, they care about them as a school. This is the Rutgers/Missouri pick.

My gut feeling is Texas and OU will leave together for either the B1G or the P12. (Texas faculty would never accept the SEC.) And that will be the end of it. The remaining 8 will be the big 12 in 2025.

(02-11-2017 06:39 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Iowa State is an AAU school. That is based on a very high ratio of research grant dollars per faculty member.

I think Research actually ranks higher on the Chancellors and Presidents than student selectivity. And the reason is simple, it relates directly to the bottom line of the institutions in the conference. Athletics is pretty much it's own empire and so long as it doesn't cost the institution money, there is not much stink. But research partnerships in seeking grants are worth real money to the Academic side of the school. The B1G is exceptional here, but the raw take in grants easily triples that for athletics. And that goes 100% to the institution, meaning the deans, faculty and the chancellor, not the hired guns in the athletic department.

Yes you are right, Texas is the only school anybody is salivating over. If the Austin faculty were the ones deciding they would pick the Pac-12 in a landslide (Austin to Berkeley and Palo Alto ties are significant). Nobody else does in the B12 much for the guys running the Universities in the Pac-12, nor any of the other power conferences. Oklahoma is enough of a brand that they can "Nebraska it" into a another conference. The only hope any of the others have is to be a complimentary pick. And nobody cares about the power rankings of that pick, they care about them as a school. This is the Rutgers/Missouri pick.

My gut feeling is Texas and OU will leave together for either the B1G or the P12. (Texas faculty would never accept the SEC.) And that will be the end of it. The remaining 8 will be the big 12 in 2025.

And yet UT has been in discussions with the SEC at least three times since '91 and Oklahoma has been in serious discussions with us twice. Just remember that the faculty at Texas has chosen to be a part of the SWC and the Big 12 for their entire existence and has never needed the lock step Borg mentality of the collective that is the Big 10. Academics are a major facet no doubt, but still just a facet. Sports is the main attractant for new students that will not be part of the top 5% that actually do research, and that 95% loves their sports identity even if they don't love all of the sports. So the athletics have become the business card introduction of the schools, and I might add a powerful one at a time when enrollment standards are debatable because applicants are no longer as plentiful as they were between 1946 and the bubble that was student loans.

GI Bill to Baby Boomers, Baby Boomers to Student Loans, the educational system never faced its downsizing after its rapid expansion to cover Post WWII America. Well guess what Buckeye, they are facing it now. Small schools are being absorbed or closed. Privates are facing more issues than ever before. Jr Colleges are being closed, merged, or converted to specific skills training (think higher application vocational education), and state schools in the mid range are becoming once again what they were prior to WWII, specific in their mission.

Texas really only absorbed newly acceptable schools when it merged with the Big 8. I made sure it kept its Texas buddy schools along for the ride. When they move again it will be with options on playing in the state of Texas as many times as is practicable for their membership in a new conference.

That's why I don't rule out the PAC. But the Big 10 could and would only accept Texas, and on a very long shot at a compromise, Rice. Texas will never go to the Big 10 because they won't abandon their Lone Star identity to A&M, which during such a move would be playing more games locally and would begin to have more sway in state than they even have currently which undermines the home status of UT. In the PAC however UT might be able to tag a couple of more Texas schools along with them, maybe.

They've talked to the SEC because we were going to offer all of their buddies in '91. Arkansas was not the only school solicited in '91. Texas, A&M and quietly OU before they had an OSU problem were in the discussions as well, but had tied their fate directly to the UT decision. UT thought they could wangle a better deal from the PAC even then. It didn't materialize and the in state political issues cropped up shortly thereafter.

The SEC's academics now, are slightly better than the Big 12's are now. Missouri and A&M boosted ours and hurt theirs. However, Arkansas, A&M, Missouri, and years and years ago LSU were all rivals or former opponents of the Horns. If they could come to the SEC today with Oklahoma and another Texas school, perhaps Tech, the temptation to head where you claim their professors and administrators would never desire to go, would be overwhelming. They would have a division of essentially the best of their old SWC & Big 8 foes. Alabama and Auburn would likely move to the East. And their academics would be slightly better by association than they are now. But more importantly their alumni base would be energized by the renewal of their traditional rivals, none of which reside in the B1G. Alumni happiness means ticket sales and full venues. Athletic exposure to exciting and meaningful events means more interest from prospective students, and all of that is about the future.

I think their choices right now would be as follows:
1. Keep their fiefdom together if possible.
2. Negotiate a move in force to the PAC.
3. Join old rivals in the SEC.
4. Follow the tradition of dishonored Samurai.
5. Join the Big 10.

Maybe the tOSU should just concentrate its efforts on Kansas.

I'll buy academics mattering to a degree (schools like to advertise their offerings to qualified perspective students), but it's not clear to me how or why a school's research prowess matters at all. Given that the bulk of the AAU's membership criteria is research-focused, I don't see how or why AAU membership matters to any significant degree.

I'd say academics (ability to attract quality students and educate them) are ~5%, travel considerations are ~10%, and a school's abilities to generate cash for the conference, its ability to add to the conference's athletic prestige, and its impact on the conference's recruiting are the other 85% of the equation.