OK, so if the PAC wants to grow to 16, who do they take?
1. They made one pass at the Texoma 4 - Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, and TTU. Is there hope that they can steal them away despite the GOR? Or would Texas refuse either way because they have a cush situation with the B12 right now.
2. If they use the BIG's market expansion logic - who do they take then, when Texoma fails? SMU* & UH represent the 4th and 5th biggest markets. Seems far fetched at this point, but what other options? BYU despite their religious base and location in Utah? Maybe. Hawaii? Maybe. New Mexico Lobos? Maybe. Nevada / UNLV / Boise St? Maybe.
- SMU *Methodist in name and founding only, secular school
- Houston - Academics improving and a school on the rise
- New Mexico - Links up Texas to Arizona / Cal
- Nevada / Hawaii - Not sure here which wins
3. They could always pair up in the states they already exist. Take Colorado State, Utah State, BYU and bring in a 4th. They could also Take NM and NMSU, but New Mexico is such a small market - The state is a whole is half the size of Dallas / Houston.
It is hard for me, and probably the PAC to see many options for them. It really depends what kind of philosophy they have. With the PAC network coming, I can see how option 1 & 2 may win. The conference can also make the decision to stay at 12, which is also very possible, but considering the PAC was the first to publiclly express the interest in a 16 team league, I bet the idea is on their mind.
Outside of the Texoma 4 .....the PAC12 would not touch any of those names you mention with 10 foot pole
(11-26-2012 06:04 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote: [ -> ]Outside of the Texoma 4 .....the PAC12 would not touch any of those names you mention with 10 foot pole
So outside maybe Kansas, the PAC is fresh out of options... They really blew it last year. Texas won't ever get embarrased like that again.
Posting in an SMUFrat thread. This is going to end well.
Seriously though, there's a lot that needs to happen before the PAC12 sniffs us and Houston. And I'm talking about a real meaningful sniff, not sending a rep out to a random game. The PAC12 need to be sure they can't get Texas/OU bundle. Moreover, they need to be sure that getting to 16 is an absolute must. Then and only then do I think SMU or Houston stand a decent chance at getting into the PAC. I'm aware that both schools are in communication with other conferences, but I'd focus our energies on what we have here today. The day the PAC12 goes to 16 could be many many years away. It's better to focus on today so that in the future we'd actually be a school that no conference would have regrets inviting.
(11-26-2012 06:09 PM)Comet Wrote: [ -> ]Posting in an SMUFrat thread. This is going to end well.
Yes, he doesn't even realize SMU is still a Methodist school. Perkins School of Theology is one of the top Methodist seminaries in the country. That doesn't mean everyone or even many are seminary students. Vanderbilt is secular. That's why SMU was founded and Emory was moved from Oxford, GA to Atlanta. They were to replace Vanderbilt who cut their ties.
(11-26-2012 06:14 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:09 PM)Comet Wrote: [ -> ]Posting in an SMUFrat thread. This is going to end well.
Yes, he doesn't even realize SMU is still a Methodist school. Perkins School of Theology is one of the top Methodist seminaries in the country. That doesn't mean everyone or even many are seminary students. Vanderbilt is secular. That's why SMU was founded and Emory was moved from Oxford, GA to Atlanta. They were to replace Vanderbilt who cut their ties.
Yeah, I guess I don't realize it is methodist. Never knew what the M stood for in SMU.
As for this topic, don't post if you are negative. I by no means think SMU is rolling out a press conference anytime soon. I think I have made some good points that I saw in Ponyfans.
If you can contribute to the discussion, please do. I am interested in the PAC's options if they decide to go to 16 - not whether they will or not. If you would like to insult me, I am accepting private messages so you hijack this thread. No need to post insults.
I think for the PAC to get upward mobility in value for their tv contracts, I think they need to move well out of their footprint. The Western footprint is typically not very college football friendly.
The home run for them is to move into Texas and Oklahoma where the football crazy population would boost PAC viewing numbers considerably. One could only imagine the massive boost the Texoma 4 would provide the conference.
If that is not going to happen and the ACC is the conference that everyone expands through then I think the PAC has to do the unthinkable and it has to stretch itself out nationally. It needs to reach out to other time zones so that it can have games featured in all tv slots. It still has the issue of lower viewership in the West than there is in the East. So by taking four teams in an eastern pod that would rather go with the PAC than be forced to move down to the Big East, then the PAC can answer many of the problems that plague the conference currently.
Yes it would be tough for those four teams but if they join for football only then they can put the rest of their sports back in the Big East perhaps. That means only three trips to the West Coast a year if the conferences move to a 4 division system. It is not the perfect situation at all, but it might end up the best choice the PAC and those four teams will have.
If they want expand without texas, etc, i might stick with a a pac 14 instead of 16:
1) Hawaii + BYU football only
let's them brand asia and get extra football game with hawaii. BYU football only might work. If the pac 10 doesn't want football only options and byu is a no go, than i like UNLV...just for the vacation + you put both the pac 12 football and hoop tourney in vegas. Team 14 could be new mexico or if they want to jump to texas, smu or even rice could work.
(11-26-2012 06:14 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:09 PM)Comet Wrote: [ -> ]Posting in an SMUFrat thread. This is going to end well.
Yes, he doesn't even realize SMU is still a Methodist school. Perkins School of Theology is one of the top Methodist seminaries in the country. That doesn't mean everyone or even many are seminary students. Vanderbilt is secular. That's why SMU was founded and Emory was moved from Oxford, GA to Atlanta. They were to replace Vanderbilt who cut their ties.
Having graduated from SMU in May, I took a total of 0 religous courses, attended 0 methodist functions, saw 0 methodist services, and openly practiced my religion on campus. Is SMU a Methodist school. Admistratively? Barely - Have a couple representatives from the church on the Board. Scholastically? No. Culturally? You wouldn't even know God had a presence on that campus.
Now, is Perkins school of theology a religious school? Yes. Is it Methodist, partly. You can get a diploma and serve as a deacon for the Greek Orthodox church at SMU! And unless they changed it recently, you can only graduate from Perkins with a grauate level degree.
SMU is religious? eh.
TCU and Baylor are religious. They require religious courses to graduate.
(11-26-2012 06:22 PM)SMUfrat Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:14 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:09 PM)Comet Wrote: [ -> ]Posting in an SMUFrat thread. This is going to end well.
Yes, he doesn't even realize SMU is still a Methodist school. Perkins School of Theology is one of the top Methodist seminaries in the country. That doesn't mean everyone or even many are seminary students. Vanderbilt is secular. That's why SMU was founded and Emory was moved from Oxford, GA to Atlanta. They were to replace Vanderbilt who cut their ties.
Yeah, I guess I don't realize it is methodist. Never knew what the M stood for in SMU.
As for this topic, don't post if you are negative. I by no means think SMU is rolling out a press conference anytime soon. I think I have made some good points that I saw in Ponyfans.
If you can contribute to the discussion, please do. I am interested in the PAC's options if they decide to go to 16 - not whether they will or not. If you would like to insult me, I am accepting private messages so you hijack this thread. No need to post insults.
You were the one who mistakenly said SMU was secular (implying I guess that made SMU acceptable to Berkeley). I corrected your mistake. SMU isn't BYU with the Mormon Church's anti-political correctness, so I don't think the religious connection would imperil SMU with the people from the left coast.
If the PAC will expand Hawaii & SDSU will be the two first non-b12 adds
(11-26-2012 06:30 PM)SMUfrat Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:14 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:09 PM)Comet Wrote: [ -> ]Posting in an SMUFrat thread. This is going to end well.
Yes, he doesn't even realize SMU is still a Methodist school. Perkins School of Theology is one of the top Methodist seminaries in the country. That doesn't mean everyone or even many are seminary students. Vanderbilt is secular. That's why SMU was founded and Emory was moved from Oxford, GA to Atlanta. They were to replace Vanderbilt who cut their ties.
Having graduated from SMU in May, I took a total of 0 religous courses, attended 0 methodist functions, saw 0 methodist services, and openly practiced my religion on campus. Is SMU a Methodist school. Admistratively? Barely - Have a couple representatives from the church on the Board. Scholastically? No. Culturally? You wouldn't even know God had a presence on that campus.
Now, is Perkins school of theology a religious school? Yes. Is it Methodist, partly. You can get a diploma and serve as a deacon for the Greek Orthodox church at SMU! And unless they changed it recently, you can only graduate from Perkins with a grauate level degree.
SMU is religious? eh.
TCU and Baylor are religious. They require religious courses to graduate.
I know Muslims who went to Baylor. You don't have to be Baptist to go to Baylor. There's not a huge gap in the "religiousness" of SMU and TCU or even Baylor anymore. BYU is different.
Again, BYU is not getting into the PAC12
(11-26-2012 06:30 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:22 PM)SMUfrat Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:14 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:09 PM)Comet Wrote: [ -> ]Posting in an SMUFrat thread. This is going to end well.
Yes, he doesn't even realize SMU is still a Methodist school. Perkins School of Theology is one of the top Methodist seminaries in the country. That doesn't mean everyone or even many are seminary students. Vanderbilt is secular. That's why SMU was founded and Emory was moved from Oxford, GA to Atlanta. They were to replace Vanderbilt who cut their ties.
Yeah, I guess I don't realize it is methodist. Never knew what the M stood for in SMU.
As for this topic, don't post if you are negative. I by no means think SMU is rolling out a press conference anytime soon. I think I have made some good points that I saw in Ponyfans.
If you can contribute to the discussion, please do. I am interested in the PAC's options if they decide to go to 16 - not whether they will or not. If you would like to insult me, I am accepting private messages so you hijack this thread. No need to post insults.
You were the one who mistakenly said SMU was secular (implying I guess that made SMU acceptable to Berkeley). I corrected your mistake. SMU isn't BYU with the Mormon Church's anti-political correctness, so I don't think the religious connection would imperil SMU with the people from the left coast.
Being the home of the Dubya Library might
(11-26-2012 06:36 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]I know Muslims who went to Baylor. You don't have to be Baptist to go to Baylor. There's not a huge gap in the "religiousness" of SMU and TCU or even Baylor anymore. BYU is different.
Non-Mormons attend BYU as well. The objection to BYU is the severe restrictions on their faculty's academic freedom. Any school with that issue is a non-starter for the Pac CEOs; the religious denomination of the school has nothing to do with it.
(11-26-2012 06:47 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:36 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]I know Muslims who went to Baylor. You don't have to be Baptist to go to Baylor. There's not a huge gap in the "religiousness" of SMU and TCU or even Baylor anymore. BYU is different.
Non-Mormons attend BYU as well. The objection to BYU is the severe restrictions on their faculty's academic freedom. Any school with that issue is a non-starter for the Pac CEOs; the religious denomination of the school has nothing to do with it.
Students also can't have pre-marital sex. Poor basketball team...
(11-26-2012 06:47 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:36 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]I know Muslims who went to Baylor. You don't have to be Baptist to go to Baylor. There's not a huge gap in the "religiousness" of SMU and TCU or even Baylor anymore. BYU is different.
Non-Mormons attend BYU as well. The objection to BYU is the severe restrictions on their faculty's academic freedom. Any school with that issue is a non-starter for the Pac CEOs; the religious denomination of the school has nothing to do with it.
You said it better than I did. The "BYU" issue is not relevant to SMU.
(11-26-2012 06:47 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:36 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]I know Muslims who went to Baylor. You don't have to be Baptist to go to Baylor. There's not a huge gap in the "religiousness" of SMU and TCU or even Baylor anymore. BYU is different.
Non-Mormons attend BYU as well. The objection to BYU is the severe restrictions on their faculty's academic freedom. Any school with that issue is a non-starter for the Pac CEOs; the religious denomination of the school has nothing to do with it.
That puts some reason behind the madness for sure.
I dont see the PAC going National. The top conferences are trying to maintain some form of geographic logic. Keeping costs low and revenue high is the standard, and I dont think FSU would be OK with being a football only member to a conference.
I think the answer to this decision might be just a economic model of revenue to the PAC. If SMU / Houston / whoever increase revenue with anticipated TV sales etc, minus cost, AND meet the PAC's standards, I can see it happening. But that same logic applies to all schools. So who knows?
(11-26-2012 07:00 PM)SMUfrat Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:47 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2012 06:36 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]I know Muslims who went to Baylor. You don't have to be Baptist to go to Baylor. There's not a huge gap in the "religiousness" of SMU and TCU or even Baylor anymore. BYU is different.
Non-Mormons attend BYU as well. The objection to BYU is the severe restrictions on their faculty's academic freedom. Any school with that issue is a non-starter for the Pac CEOs; the religious denomination of the school has nothing to do with it.
That puts some reason behind the madness for sure.
I dont see the PAC going National. The top conferences are trying to maintain some form of geographic logic. Keeping costs low and revenue high is the standard, and I dont think FSU would be OK with being a football only member to a conference.
I think the answer to this decision might be just a economic model of revenue to the PAC. If SMU / Houston / whoever increase revenue with anticipated TV sales etc, minus cost, AND meet the PAC's standards, I can see it happening. But that same logic applies to all schools. So who knows?
When I was talking about four teams from the East ending up with the PAC as a possibility, I was NOT talking about FSU. Just sayin...
If markets matter, then Houston and SMU have a shot at some point, if re-alignment moves faster than expected. I live in Houston right now and have the Pac-12 network. I pay about.07 cents on my subscription fees, I would think Dallas being #4 TV market, and Houston being #10 would increase the subscriber fees upwards of .70 cents for subscriber fees if Houston and Smu were added. Thats a huge increase.