If San Diego County was a state it would be around 30th in population, just in front of Utah. The assumption is PAC already has the market, but looking at the actual numbers tells another story, mainly that the PAC CCG underperforms against the other P5's in this market. To get to 14 without adding P5's the PAC should add BYU & SDSU. To get to 14 it should be BYU, SDSU, BSU, and UNLV/CSU.
(11-17-2020 08:05 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]What does the PAC gain by increasing to 16 members that is worth reducing the revenues of the existing 12 members?
He will never answer nor understand your point.
Sorry I took so long to reply. The site crashes my tablet. To answer:
To me college sports are an extracurricular activity, a high profile for sure, but an extra currricular nevertheless. It should be about expanding the horizons and life experiences of student-athletes ZNOT cashing checks.
And I agree that UT and OU are expansion white whales (for everyone), I stipulated that this is Plan B
To get to 16 in the current environment, where Texas is happy as is, would require the P12 to add Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.
Pods of 4 work, as do two division of 8
New Big 8 - Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Iowa State
Old Pac 8 - USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Washington, WSU, OSU, Oregon
Their title game and league office should be in Vegas.
Nebraska needs to reestablish recruiting in California and Texas. Playing in California, ASU, and Oklahoma will do that for them. They can become relevant again. The P12 gets 4 schools in the Central Time zone. The academic relations are the step up Oklahoma has been seeking. Nebraska trades fealty to Ohio State and Michigan for that of Stanford and USC. Likewise Oklahoma trades Texas for Stanford and USC.
How much more money this construct makes is questionable, but money isn't the real issue in the P12 or with Nebraska and OU.
From top to bottom, it's at least 40% cheaper to do anything in Vegas as opposed to SF. Spatial constraints drive underlying land values and everything else through the roof. The P12 needs to step out of that.
You could rotate the pods or do permanent divisions (in which case the AZ schools would be in the West and Utah and Colorado in the East).
12 of the 16 are AAU.
If money is what Texas and Oklahoma are after then they should obviously look to the SEC/Big Ten but if they want to be the power programs of a conference but the Big 12 as is isn’t enough of a money maker to stay in proximity to the Big 2 then this might work.
(11-17-2020 11:37 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]There's no benefit to the Pac 12 adding any of these schools.
With the possible exception of the Big 12 down the road, there's really no upside of any conference adding someone that isn't already in the top half of a P5 conference.
That’s the conclusion I’ve pretty much reached.
Same here. It's a non-starter. But since the question was asked I'll point out that only three schools would receive serious consideration if the Pac-12 wanted to bring in a new member from the MWC: Hawaii, Colorado State and New Mexico. Those are the three Carnegie "Very High Research" doctoral universities in the conference.
CORRECTION: My bad, it turns out both UNLV and Nevada have recently achieved "Very High Research" status. So make that five that could pass the minimum academic litmus test.
From the AAC the only "Very High Research" university west of the Mississippi is Houston.
(11-17-2020 08:05 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]What does the PAC gain by increasing to 16 members that is worth reducing the revenues of the existing 12 members?
He will never answer nor understand your point.
A Mod here used to delete his threads and he’d complain about it in the Help forum with zero understanding why his threads were getting deleted. Unfortunately, that mod is no longer as active.
Most mods are inactive anymore..... look at the MAC board. The mods are non-existent.
(11-17-2020 08:05 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]What does the PAC gain by increasing to 16 members that is worth reducing the revenues of the existing 12 members?
He will never answer nor understand your point.
Sorry I took so long to reply. The site crashes my tablet. To answer:
To me college sports are an extracurricular activity, a high profile for sure, but an extra currricular nevertheless. It should be about expanding the horizons and life experiences of student-athletes ZNOT cashing checks.
And I agree that UT and OU are expansion white whales (for everyone), I stipulated that this is Plan B
No worries.
PAC had Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in Fall 2011 and shockingly passed. I would love to know what transpired in those conversations.
Conferences need to go back to 10 teams and still have championship games. Going to 16+ games is only going to kill the college game at a faster rate than it's already dying. How many articles came out this week alone moaning about the lack of parity in the game. Going to the 4-16 format is only going to further the difference between the haves and have nots to the point nobody gives a damn. Hell not even NFL bound players care about bowl games anymore. You're going to see more and more NFL bound players opt out mid season when there's nothing to be played for. At least in more regional conferences with just 9 or ten teams there's more of an opportunity to compete for a conference championship and potential playoff run. The conferences' greed is only growing and their bubble is about to bust.
Look at Utah for example, they had an easier route to the BCS as a shark in a pond than they are for a playoff spot as just an average fish in the PAC pond.