Plan A clearly being UT/OU +2. Which of these 4 would make the most sense:
UNM
BOISE ST.
BYU
NEVADA
UNLV
SDSU
HAWAII
I'd guess: UNM, BSU, NEVADA and HAWAII
Unless 4 of those schools become AAU members it’s not going to happen.
What does the PAC gain by increasing to 16 members that is worth reducing the revenues of the existing 12 members?
(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.
(11-17-2020 08:21 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote: [ -> ] (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.
If you were still following a market model I would take in order
1. Hawaii (as part of strategy to get Asia market)
2. UNLV (to lock in Vegas as PAC-16 territory)
3. UNM (to lock in growing New Mexico)
4. Boise (to lock in growing Idaho)
UNLV or Nevada may have a slim chance given that the state of Nevada is experiencing the population growth. The other schools have zero chance.
They would actually need all of them and more, because a move to add four of those schools would send USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington running to join somebody (anybody) else.
USFFan
What’s the point of the expansion? The way I understand it, an expansion would be looking to expand the subscriber base of the Pac12 network. The Pac12 is already in California and Utah. The other options have such small state populations it probably wouldn’t make much difference. The last proposed expansion to 16 included Texas, which is the largest population state is the nation other than California and is the only state west of the Mississippi that might make a substantial difference in the network subscriber base. My guess is any expansion that does not have a school (or schools) that the conference believes can attract significant viewership in Texas is a non-starter.
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.
(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.
(11-17-2020 11:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (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.
Agree. The P5 conferences are currently sharing the CFP payouts and major bowl payouts in manners that financially reward conferences that have fewer (rather than more) conference members.
For example, the Rose Bowl provides $80M in payouts in years when the B10 and PAC provide the teams. The money is split evenly between the 2 conferences. At a high level, each PAC team earns $3.33M ($40M/12 teams), while each B10 earns $2.86M ($40M/14), in the current financial model. Adding additional teams would dilute the “earnings” of every existing P5 conference school.
Given the current financial arrangements, even the PAC’s last expansion (with Colorado and Utah) would be highly questionable. From a financial perspective, only top tier P5 universities (such as UT-Austin, Texas A&M, Oklahoma,Nebraska or Iowa) would make sense as current PAC expansion candidates. These top tier P5 universities add value to any existing P5 conference, because these universities are desired by media companies and bowls...these are schools that have large fan bases and are able to win a disproportionate share of P5 games.
For UNM, BSU, Hawaii, UNLV and Nevada they really need the current financial model to dramatically change before they get a look from the PAC. Even schools with good fan support (e.g. BYU has 65k/game attendance) are not getting consideration.
The Pac-12 will only expand if they poach somehow the Big 12 but I doubt that happens. The Pac-12 needs to get a TV partner like Comcast or ViacomCBS to purchase an equity stake in Pac-12 Networks (where they can combine it with their other channels to get carriage) for it to be viable which I believe is possible. I can definitely see the Big 12 expanding if BYU, Cincinnati & Memphis keep it up competitively. Colorado State & Houston would also get looks I think.
(11-17-2020 09:20 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]UNLV or Nevada may have a slim chance given that the state of Nevada is experiencing the population growth. The other schools have zero chance.
Watch that trend for growth evaporate as climate change becomes more severe and water becomes ever more scarce. Colorado River flows are already seriously over-subscribed, Lakes Powell and Mead are approaching deadpool (the level at which they can no longer generate electricity), and the river's headwaters are in the grip of an exceptional drought (the most extreme level). Las Vegas, Phoenix, and the food-growing Imperial Valley all depend on Colorado River water, and they're all going to suffer.
Those who think climate change is a political rather than environmental issue are in for a rude awakening. Not only is the amount of precipitation declining in headwaters areas, but warming has also altered the timing and rates of seasonal melt and runoff. The bottom line: there are too many people competing for dwindling resources in the desert southwest, and the situation is unsustainable.
(11-17-2020 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]What’s the point of the expansion? The way I understand it, an expansion would be looking to expand the subscriber base of the Pac12 network. The Pac12 is already in California and Utah. The other options have such small state populations it probably wouldn’t make much difference. The last proposed expansion to 16 included Texas, which is the largest population state is the nation other than California and is the only state west of the Mississippi that might make a substantial difference in the network subscriber base. My guess is any expansion that does not have a school (or schools) that the conference believes can attract significant viewership in Texas is a non-starter.
Pretty accurate.
If the B12 implodes, with Oklahoma and Texas leaving (SEC/B1G doesn't matter), then it is entirely plausible the P12 looks at schools like TCU, Texas Tech and even Kansas. TCU is the most logical add, but they are not a research institution. If TCU then why not BYU?
Note: BYU's audience is a bit different, it brings you Mormons who are rather significant in much of the West; it would not add any markets, but it would add eyeballs.
The standard has always been Texas. But the Longhorns are never going to go west. Does even a TCU and Texas Tech combo give you sufficient a slice of the Texas market to bother?
As for adding "City" State U's like San Diego State, UNLV, Boise State, Colorado State, et al, they don't help one iota, and most lower league the AI. Colorado State looks like a P12 school in the mold of the other three State schools (WSU, ASU, OSU) but is teetering on the bottom of that group for AI. SDSU has decent AI but not enough research (CSU charter in the way) and not enough stature to ever be accepted by the UC schools. UNM, BSU, UNLV are non starters. Same for Fresno State.
That is not much to pick from. And even questionable if a B12 implosion leaves them any scraps worth picking up. I expect the P12 to be the P12 for a very long time.
None of those schools add anything to the Pac-12 except maybe BYU. Those schools are not going anyway so why rush it? That’s like the Pac-10 adding Utah in the 80’s. What was the rush back then? The same applies to those schools on the list.
None of those schools would join the “PAC “ ...It is Toast
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
(11-17-2020 06:58 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote: [ -> ]None of those schools would join the “PAC “ ...It is Toast
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Correction. All of these schools would join the Pac ... if invited. None of these schools would be invited to the Pac.
Any potential PAC expansion plan has to include Texas teams or its a non-starter.
Houston ( population ) and Hawaii ( xtra games )
Are the only 2 with fighters chance now