Pac-12 presidents, athletic directors and conference executives will gather Monday at Arizona State for a quarterly meeting that is anything but routine. Momentous topics are on the agenda, including what a source called an “important update” on the media rights negotiations that will help define the future of the conference.
Commissioner George Kliavkoff has been working with potential broadcast partners for months to construct an agreement that satisfies the desire for both revenue and visibility. Negotiations are expected to conclude in the next four-to-six weeks. But if talks with ESPN, Amazon, Fox and other media companies extend deep into the spring, campus officials could become anxious, lose faith in the process and explore alternatives.
Kliavkoff is also expected to brief the presidents on the conference’s financial outlook, the ongoing transformation of the NCAA constitution and matters involving the Pac-12 Networks.
Officials for USC and UCLA are expected to take part in discussions about current conference affairs but not conversations about the strategic matters involving the future of the league.
SMU and San Diego State pitched as the two top options for the Pac-12 if they expand The Paul Finebaum Show:
“I think San Diego State’s probably No. 1 because it’s a pretty good media market and also, the Pac-12 needs to have a campus in Southern California, That is the prime recruiting territory. If they don’t invite San Diego State, the Big 12 probably will. Brett Yormark’s made no secret about trying to get schools in the Pacific time zone. “So, if San Diego State’s out there and available, the Big 12’s going to take them. That would leave two Big Ten teams in L.A. and a Big 12 team in San Diego, and that would not be good for Pac-12 recruiting in Southern California. I think San Diego State is pretty much a must-add. My guess is if they went with a 12th — and they don’t have to add a 12th, I don’t think, because if you don’t have football divisions, you could play with an odd number. But if they do add a 12th, I think SMU might be at the top of the list,” Wilner said. “Because I think that they would like to get into Dallas for recruiting and also for the media market just to kind of expand the conference footprint. One thing it does is it gives you inventory because if you’ve got more teams, you can play more games that satisfy the media partners’ need for programming,” Wilner said. “I think that that’s certainly part of it, especially if there’s a desire on the part of ESPN or Amazon to have Pac-12 games every Friday night at 9 or 10:00 Eastern when there’s no competition, they need schools. If you’ve only got 10, then everybody’s playing more frequently on Friday night, for example. If you’ve got 12, you can spread it out more. So I think part of it is just the inventory play, strength in numbers. Look, San Diego State, they’ve got a better basketball program than a lot of schools in the Pac-12, and I think the conference feels like both of those schools meet the criteria academically [and] can eventually become more competitive, up to a Power 5 level." - Jon Wilner said on The Paul Finebaum Show on Friday
Link
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/01/29/h...State=true
IMHO if they are going to take SMU (R2), they should strongly consider Boise State. Along with SDSU, then they have to decide for a 14th... UTSA, Col St, UNLV, New Mexico or Hawaii all R(1)
A Combo of Markets & Brands would have me add (Pac14):
SDSU
UNLV
Boise ST
SMU
If (PAC16)
UTSA
New Mexico
(01-30-2023 08:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO if they are going to take SMU (R2), they should strongly consider Boise State. Along with SDSU, then they have to decide for a 14th... UTSA, Col St, UNLV, New Mexico or Hawaii all R(1)
A Combo of Markets & Brands would have me add (Pac14):
SDSU
UNLV
Boise ST
SMU
If (PAC16)
UTSA
New Mexico
I'd say these choices look very plausible.
As soon as the PAC adds a school as far to the east as Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas it has to think about filling out the expanded footprint.
(01-30-2023 08:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO if they are going to take SMU (R2), they should strongly consider Boise State. Along with SDSU, then they have to decide for a 14th... UTSA, Col St, UNLV, New Mexico or Hawaii all R(1)
A Combo of Markets & Brands would have me add (Pac14):
SDSU
UNLV
Boise ST
SMU
If (PAC16)
UTSA
New Mexico
I've been talking about the research ranking aspect of conference realignment for about as long as anyone out there, but the R1 vs. R2 distinction simply isn't very relevant at least when talking about P5 expansion (or at least the Big Ten and Pac-12).
Sure, a perfect Pac-12 profile school would be an AAU institution (which would inherently be an R1 institution) located in the Pacific or Mountain Time Zones and has a long history of FBS football.
The problem is that the number of schools that fit that profile that aren't already in the Pac-12 or now the Big Ten (USC/UCLA) is ZERO.
The fact that the Pac-12 might be considering SMU has nothing to do with the league being fine with *any* R2 institution. In the case of SMU, they are consistently in the top 75 of the US News undergrad rankings, located directly in a major TV and recruiting market, and have a long history of playing FBS football. So, it would be a grave mistake that the Pac-12 thinking that SMU is academically acceptable means that they're going to find Boise State academically acceptable (without even considering the non-academic factors in favor of SMU). SMU is a highly-ranked school for undergrad that's located in a particularly strategic location. Stanford, Cal and Washington are going to have way less of an issue with adding a school like SMU than universities that are *much* lower-ranked for undergrad like Boise State or R1 schools like UTSA.
UNLV is the only interesting case study of whether the Pac-12 will consider a school that's ranked much lower than its current standards solely because of its location and market (similar to the analysis for SDSU).
I honestly can't figure out if they are going to expand or not. I think it is 50/50. SDSU and SMU are likely the favorites but who knows? Also, I notice no talk of Gonzaga at all? Does that mean the Big 12 has that all but wrapped up or Washington, Cal, Stanford, etc. don't want them.
(01-30-2023 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2023 08:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO if they are going to take SMU (R2), they should strongly consider Boise State. Along with SDSU, then they have to decide for a 14th... UTSA, Col St, UNLV, New Mexico or Hawaii all R(1)
A Combo of Markets & Brands would have me add (Pac14):
SDSU
UNLV
Boise ST
SMU
If (PAC16)
UTSA
New Mexico
I've been talking about the research ranking aspect of conference realignment for about as long as anyone out there, but the R1 vs. R2 distinction simply isn't very relevant at least when talking about P5 expansion (or at least the Big Ten and Pac-12).
Sure, a perfect Pac-12 profile school would be an AAU institution (which would inherently be an R1 institution) located in the Pacific or Mountain Time Zones and has a long history of FBS football.
The problem is that the number of schools that fit that profile that aren't already in the Pac-12 or now the Big Ten (USC/UCLA) is ZERO.
The fact that the Pac-12 might be considering SMU has nothing to do with the league being fine with *any* R2 institution. In the case of SMU, they are consistently in the top 75 of the US News undergrad rankings, located directly in a major TV and recruiting market, and have a long history of playing FBS football. So, it would be a grave mistake that the Pac-12 thinking that SMU is academically acceptable means that they're going to find Boise State academically acceptable (without even considering the non-academic factors in favor of SMU). SMU is a highly-ranked school for undergrad that's located in a particularly strategic location. Stanford, Cal and Washington are going to have way less of an issue with adding a school like SMU than universities that are *much* lower-ranked for undergrad like Boise State or R1 schools like UTSA.
UNLV is the only interesting case study of whether the Pac-12 will consider a school that's ranked much lower than its current standards solely because of its location and market (similar to the analysis for SDSU).
SDSU is a better school than UNLV though.
(01-30-2023 09:43 AM)shizzle787 Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly can't figure out if they are going to expand or not. I think it is 50/50. SDSU and SMU are likely the favorites but who knows? Also, I notice no talk of Gonzaga at all? Does that mean the Big 12 has that all but wrapped up or Washington, Cal, Stanford, etc. don't want them.
I think changes of Pac-12 expansion are more like 80/20 in favor. It's *really* hard for me to see the Pac-12 going forward without SDSU. Having a presence in Southern California is so specifically critical for the Pac-12 that they just can't take any hint of a chance of the Big 12 taking them and, as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are ZERO other options in that region (not even a Texas State/UTSA/UNT-level school... and SDSU is much more established compared to all of those others).
As for the bolded, it might be a combination of both. All things being equal, I think Gonzaga would prefer to be in the Pac-12. However, as many schools know, one of the most powerful driving forces in conference realignment is simply "Protecting your own territory." It's BC blocking UConn from the ACC or the Big Ten never considering expansion in any of its existing states unless it's Notre Dame.
In this case, I believe that Washington and Washington State are going to push back against adding Gonzaga and fight heavily protect their own territory (and Washington's voice in particular is going to carry more weight in Pac-12 expansion matters just as we saw with Texas and Oklahoma when they were in the Big 12). This isn't like Notre Dame being in the middle of the Big Ten where they're such a monster valuable brand that the fact that Irish encroach upon multiple existing Big Ten markets doesn't matter. I don't think Washington wants to elevate Gonzaga to being on an equal plane as them.
That leaves the Big 12 with the ability to add Gonzaga.
(01-30-2023 08:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO if they are going to take SMU (R2), they should strongly consider Boise State. Along with SDSU, then they have to decide for a 14th... UTSA, Col St, UNLV, New Mexico or Hawaii all R(1)
A Combo of Markets & Brands would have me add (Pac14):
SDSU
UNLV
Boise ST
SMU
If (PAC16)
UTSA
New Mexico
Remember that university presidents are making these decisions. If we had footage of someone informing the Cal and Stanford presidents that Boise St would now be their conference peers, I'd imagine we'd be hearing some piercing screams.
(01-30-2023 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]UNLV is the only interesting case study of whether the Pac-12 will consider a school that's ranked much lower than its current standards solely because of its location and market (similar to the analysis for SDSU).
Although it would never happen, it would be interesting to see how quickly a school like Nevada would grow if it had Pac 12 membership. The flagship in one of the fastest growing states in the nation... would the university's profile grow quickly with that relationship? I guess we will never know.
(01-30-2023 09:44 AM)shizzle787 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2023 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2023 08:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO if they are going to take SMU (R2), they should strongly consider Boise State. Along with SDSU, then they have to decide for a 14th... UTSA, Col St, UNLV, New Mexico or Hawaii all R(1)
A Combo of Markets & Brands would have me add (Pac14):
SDSU
UNLV
Boise ST
SMU
If (PAC16)
UTSA
New Mexico
I've been talking about the research ranking aspect of conference realignment for about as long as anyone out there, but the R1 vs. R2 distinction simply isn't very relevant at least when talking about P5 expansion (or at least the Big Ten and Pac-12).
Sure, a perfect Pac-12 profile school would be an AAU institution (which would inherently be an R1 institution) located in the Pacific or Mountain Time Zones and has a long history of FBS football.
The problem is that the number of schools that fit that profile that aren't already in the Pac-12 or now the Big Ten (USC/UCLA) is ZERO.
The fact that the Pac-12 might be considering SMU has nothing to do with the league being fine with *any* R2 institution. In the case of SMU, they are consistently in the top 75 of the US News undergrad rankings, located directly in a major TV and recruiting market, and have a long history of playing FBS football. So, it would be a grave mistake that the Pac-12 thinking that SMU is academically acceptable means that they're going to find Boise State academically acceptable (without even considering the non-academic factors in favor of SMU). SMU is a highly-ranked school for undergrad that's located in a particularly strategic location. Stanford, Cal and Washington are going to have way less of an issue with adding a school like SMU than universities that are *much* lower-ranked for undergrad like Boise State or R1 schools like UTSA.
UNLV is the only interesting case study of whether the Pac-12 will consider a school that's ranked much lower than its current standards solely because of its location and market (similar to the analysis for SDSU).
SDSU is a better school than UNLV though.
Yes, absolutely. SDSU is tied with Oregon State and higher than Washington State in the US News rankings. Considering the Pac-12's other options and how critical Southern California is to the league, my educated guess is that's going to be academically acceptable. UNLV is definitely much lower than everyone else (#285 compared to Wazzu's #212 ranking).
(01-30-2023 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2023 08:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO if they are going to take SMU (R2), they should strongly consider Boise State. Along with SDSU, then they have to decide for a 14th... UTSA, Col St, UNLV, New Mexico or Hawaii all R(1)
A Combo of Markets & Brands would have me add (Pac14):
SDSU
UNLV
Boise ST
SMU
If (PAC16)
UTSA
New Mexico
I've been talking about the research ranking aspect of conference realignment for about as long as anyone out there, but the R1 vs. R2 distinction simply isn't very relevant at least when talking about P5 expansion (or at least the Big Ten and Pac-12).
Sure, a perfect Pac-12 profile school would be an AAU institution (which would inherently be an R1 institution) located in the Pacific or Mountain Time Zones and has a long history of FBS football.
The problem is that the number of schools that fit that profile that aren't already in the Pac-12 or now the Big Ten (USC/UCLA) is ZERO.
The fact that the Pac-12 might be considering SMU has nothing to do with the league being fine with *any* R2 institution. In the case of SMU, they are consistently in the top 75 of the US News undergrad rankings, located directly in a major TV and recruiting market, and have a long history of playing FBS football. So, it would be a grave mistake that the Pac-12 thinking that SMU is academically acceptable means that they're going to find Boise State academically acceptable (without even considering the non-academic factors in favor of SMU).
....
It's all a question of how much past behaviour foretells future actions with the PAC right now. As you indicate by putting
zero in all caps, some old red lines must be redrawn anyway.
For a number of PAC presidents, if not all, I suspect any reputable public university is now on the board as long as the media people like the numbers. We'll see.
(01-30-2023 08:46 AM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]Pac-12 presidents, athletic directors and conference executives will gather Monday at Arizona State for a quarterly meeting that is anything but routine. Momentous topics are on the agenda, including what a source called an “important update” on the media rights negotiations that will help define the future of the conference.
Commissioner George Kliavkoff has been working with potential broadcast partners for months to construct an agreement that satisfies the desire for both revenue and visibility. Negotiations are expected to conclude in the next four-to-six weeks. But if talks with ESPN, Amazon, Fox and other media companies extend deep into the spring, campus officials could become anxious, lose faith in the process and explore alternatives.
Kliavkoff is also expected to brief the presidents on the conference’s financial outlook, the ongoing transformation of the NCAA constitution and matters involving the Pac-12 Networks.
Officials for USC and UCLA are expected to take part in discussions about current conference affairs but not conversations about the strategic matters involving the future of the league.
SMU and San Diego State pitched as the two top options for the Pac-12 if they expand The Paul Finebaum Show:
“I think San Diego State’s probably No. 1 because it’s a pretty good media market and also, the Pac-12 needs to have a campus in Southern California, That is the prime recruiting territory. If they don’t invite San Diego State, the Big 12 probably will. Brett Yormark’s made no secret about trying to get schools in the Pacific time zone. “So, if San Diego State’s out there and available, the Big 12’s going to take them. That would leave two Big Ten teams in L.A. and a Big 12 team in San Diego, and that would not be good for Pac-12 recruiting in Southern California. I think San Diego State is pretty much a must-add. My guess is if they went with a 12th — and they don’t have to add a 12th, I don’t think, because if you don’t have football divisions, you could play with an odd number. But if they do add a 12th, I think SMU might be at the top of the list,” Wilner said. “Because I think that they would like to get into Dallas for recruiting and also for the media market just to kind of expand the conference footprint. One thing it does is it gives you inventory because if you’ve got more teams, you can play more games that satisfy the media partners’ need for programming,” Wilner said. “I think that that’s certainly part of it, especially if there’s a desire on the part of ESPN or Amazon to have Pac-12 games every Friday night at 9 or 10:00 Eastern when there’s no competition, they need schools. If you’ve only got 10, then everybody’s playing more frequently on Friday night, for example. If you’ve got 12, you can spread it out more. So I think part of it is just the inventory play, strength in numbers. Look, San Diego State, they’ve got a better basketball program than a lot of schools in the Pac-12, and I think the conference feels like both of those schools meet the criteria academically [and] can eventually become more competitive, up to a Power 5 level." - Jon Wilner said on The Paul Finebaum Show on Friday
Link
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/01/29/h...State=true
That's a lot of things on the agenda.
Sort of a "state of the conference" meeting.
I realize this thought is out of left field, but it struck me when reading this - this sounds like more than merely an update. I wonder if they are considering firing Mr. Kliavkoff.
(01-30-2023 09:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2023 09:43 AM)shizzle787 Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly can't figure out if they are going to expand or not. I think it is 50/50. SDSU and SMU are likely the favorites but who knows? Also, I notice no talk of Gonzaga at all? Does that mean the Big 12 has that all but wrapped up or Washington, Cal, Stanford, etc. don't want them.
I think changes of Pac-12 expansion are more like 80/20 in favor. It's *really* hard for me to see the Pac-12 going forward without SDSU. Having a presence in Southern California is so specifically critical for the Pac-12 that they just can't take any hint of a chance of the Big 12 taking them and, as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are ZERO other options in that region (not even a Texas State/UTSA/UNT-level school... and SDSU is much more established compared to all of those others).
As for the bolded, it might be a combination of both. All things being equal, I think Gonzaga would prefer to be in the Pac-12. However, as many schools know, one of the most powerful driving forces in conference realignment is simply "Protecting your own territory." It's BC blocking UConn from the ACC or the Big Ten never considering expansion in any of its existing states unless it's Notre Dame.
In this case, I believe that Washington and Washington State are going to push back against adding Gonzaga and fight heavily protect their own territory (and Washington's voice in particular is going to carry more weight in Pac-12 expansion matters just as we saw with Texas and Oklahoma when they were in the Big 12). This isn't like Notre Dame being in the middle of the Big Ten where they're such a monster valuable brand that the fact that Irish encroach upon multiple existing Big Ten markets doesn't matter. I don't think Washington wants to elevate Gonzaga to being on an equal plane as them.
That leaves the Big 12 with the ability to add Gonzaga.
...I wondered a week or so ago about whether the BigXII would consider snagging SMU to prevent the PAC from entering the heart of "BigXII territory" (well, now SEC territory as well
) - although SMU would be 'no new area' for the BIG XII, would it make sense to block the PAC, ESPECIALLY if the endgame for the BIGXII is to grab the 4Cs and/or SDSU?
(01-30-2023 09:43 AM)shizzle787 Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly can't figure out if they are going to expand or not. I think it is 50/50. SDSU and SMU are likely the favorites but who knows? Also, I notice no talk of Gonzaga at all? Does that mean the Big 12 has that all but wrapped up or Washington, Cal, Stanford, etc. don't want them.
I think Gonzaga would probably choose the PAC-12 over the Big 12 for geographic reasons. I'm just not sure that Gonzaga would actually have the option of going to either conference.
Even though Yormark was loudly promoting Gonzaga to the Big 12, it was never clear that he had the votes from the presidents to do that. I'm not aware of anybody in the PAC saying they're in favor of adding Gonzaga.
(01-30-2023 09:43 AM)shizzle787 Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly can't figure out if they are going to expand or not. I think it is 50/50. SDSU and SMU are likely the favorites but who knows? Also, I notice no talk of Gonzaga at all? Does that mean the Big 12 has that all but wrapped up or Washington, Cal, Stanford, etc. don't want them.
I have to think any expansion will need to have whatever media partners pushing for more inventory. I could see that debate going either way.
"We need X number of games and you don't have enough"
OR
"We're only interested in nationally airing X number of games and adding more simply means lower revenue streaming additions"
That makes the decision real quick lol.
(01-30-2023 08:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO if they are going to take SMU (R2), they should strongly consider Boise State. Along with SDSU, then they have to decide for a 14th... UTSA, Col St, UNLV, New Mexico or Hawaii all R(1)
A Combo of Markets & Brands would have me add (Pac14):
SDSU
UNLV
Boise ST
SMU
If (PAC16)
UTSA
New Mexico
Idaho's population is 2 million people. Boise is about 200,000. Consider how small the market is and how other markets may provide more value.
(01-30-2023 11:10 AM)Poster Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2023 09:43 AM)shizzle787 Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly can't figure out if they are going to expand or not. I think it is 50/50. SDSU and SMU are likely the favorites but who knows? Also, I notice no talk of Gonzaga at all? Does that mean the Big 12 has that all but wrapped up or Washington, Cal, Stanford, etc. don't want them.
I think Gonzaga would probably choose the PAC-12 over the Big 12 for geographic reasons. I'm just not sure that Gonzaga would actually have the option of going to either conference.
Even though Yormark was loudly promoting Gonzaga to the Big 12, it was never clear that he had the votes from the presidents to do that. I'm not aware of anybody in the PAC saying they're in favor of adding Gonzaga.
I'm about 90% certain that the Gonzaga was mostly the Zags trying to create FOMO with the PAC and the Big 12 wanted to look active and attractive. So it was mutually beneficial.
I don't think the conference hates the idea of Gonzaga in a vacuum, but they have to be part of a western wing, NOT as a stand alone.
(01-30-2023 09:43 AM)shizzle787 Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly can't figure out if they are going to expand or not. I think it is 50/50. SDSU and SMU are likely the favorites but who knows? Also, I notice no talk of Gonzaga at all? Does that mean the Big 12 has that all but wrapped up or Washington, Cal, Stanford, etc. don't want them.
I've read that Washington and Washington St. would veto a Gonzaga invite.
(01-30-2023 10:19 AM)Gitanole Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2023 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2023 08:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO if they are going to take SMU (R2), they should strongly consider Boise State. Along with SDSU, then they have to decide for a 14th... UTSA, Col St, UNLV, New Mexico or Hawaii all R(1)
A Combo of Markets & Brands would have me add (Pac14):
SDSU
UNLV
Boise ST
SMU
If (PAC16)
UTSA
New Mexico
I've been talking about the research ranking aspect of conference realignment for about as long as anyone out there, but the R1 vs. R2 distinction simply isn't very relevant at least when talking about P5 expansion (or at least the Big Ten and Pac-12).
Sure, a perfect Pac-12 profile school would be an AAU institution (which would inherently be an R1 institution) located in the Pacific or Mountain Time Zones and has a long history of FBS football.
The problem is that the number of schools that fit that profile that aren't already in the Pac-12 or now the Big Ten (USC/UCLA) is ZERO.
The fact that the Pac-12 might be considering SMU has nothing to do with the league being fine with *any* R2 institution. In the case of SMU, they are consistently in the top 75 of the US News undergrad rankings, located directly in a major TV and recruiting market, and have a long history of playing FBS football. So, it would be a grave mistake that the Pac-12 thinking that SMU is academically acceptable means that they're going to find Boise State academically acceptable (without even considering the non-academic factors in favor of SMU).
....
It's all a question of how much past behaviour foretells future actions with the PAC right now. As you indicate by putting zero in all caps, some old red lines must be redrawn anyway.
For a number of PAC presidents, if not all, I suspect any reputable public university is now on the board as long as the media people like the numbers. We'll see.
I have a very hard time seeing media partners pushing for expansion. The only slim possibility is if adding teams pushes the PAC over some threshold for “inventory”.
(01-30-2023 09:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2023 09:44 AM)shizzle787 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2023 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2023 08:57 AM)GTFletch Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO if they are going to take SMU (R2), they should strongly consider Boise State. Along with SDSU, then they have to decide for a 14th... UTSA, Col St, UNLV, New Mexico or Hawaii all R(1)
A Combo of Markets & Brands would have me add (Pac14):
SDSU
UNLV
Boise ST
SMU
If (PAC16)
UTSA
New Mexico
I've been talking about the research ranking aspect of conference realignment for about as long as anyone out there, but the R1 vs. R2 distinction simply isn't very relevant at least when talking about P5 expansion (or at least the Big Ten and Pac-12).
Sure, a perfect Pac-12 profile school would be an AAU institution (which would inherently be an R1 institution) located in the Pacific or Mountain Time Zones and has a long history of FBS football.
The problem is that the number of schools that fit that profile that aren't already in the Pac-12 or now the Big Ten (USC/UCLA) is ZERO.
The fact that the Pac-12 might be considering SMU has nothing to do with the league being fine with *any* R2 institution. In the case of SMU, they are consistently in the top 75 of the US News undergrad rankings, located directly in a major TV and recruiting market, and have a long history of playing FBS football. So, it would be a grave mistake that the Pac-12 thinking that SMU is academically acceptable means that they're going to find Boise State academically acceptable (without even considering the non-academic factors in favor of SMU). SMU is a highly-ranked school for undergrad that's located in a particularly strategic location. Stanford, Cal and Washington are going to have way less of an issue with adding a school like SMU than universities that are *much* lower-ranked for undergrad like Boise State or R1 schools like UTSA.
UNLV is the only interesting case study of whether the Pac-12 will consider a school that's ranked much lower than its current standards solely because of its location and market (similar to the analysis for SDSU).
SDSU is a better school than UNLV though.
Yes, absolutely. SDSU is tied with Oregon State and higher than Washington State in the US News rankings. Considering the Pac-12's other options and how critical Southern California is to the league, my educated guess is that's going to be academically acceptable. UNLV is definitely much lower than everyone else (#285 compared to Wazzu's #212 ranking).
SDSU will achieve R1 status by 2025.