(06-18-2017 08:45 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Just curious on why you wrote "SDSU....they were in the same league as UofA, ASU, Utah". No, they weren't. SDSU was invited to the WAC after Arizona and ASU left in 1978.

Another factual inaccuracy from Stugray? You don't say.

(06-17-2017 11:37 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Cougarred,

Your school is so far from the Pac-12 is comedic that you try to claim they fit. Does it matter if the comparison year is 2015 or 2012? These things change at a glacial rate. But the gap in graduation rates between the P12 schools and Houston is only one measure, and it is the one which Houston is closest. Far more important are the HERD numbers, and the gap is not 20% less than the bottom P12 schools, but more like 60% from the bottom. And this is the first number the P12 looks at. This one is a killer.

Stanford, USC, Cal, UCLA, UW (who control WSU) are HELL NO votes. This should shut down the entire topic. But somehow you think UH can win some votes somewhere, that an AD is powerful voice on these campuses like it is in the B12 or SEC. But I'm afraid not. The dynamic is very different, the ADs voice is much weaker. Athletics make up a far smaller percentage of the school's income (we are talking a ratio of 7:1 in favor of research, 4x the ratio in the SEC or B12). You can call it snooty, but it's not, it's the same, money comes first, just the source of the money is different.

Nothing about Houston fits the profile of a Pac-12 school. Rice and Texas do. Tech is borderline but has Texas pulling them in. CSU matches the culture, is not much different than the likes of UofA, ASU and Utah; Iowa State has AAU status and solid P5 athletics; TCU is highly selective and brings the DFW market; while SDSU out performs UH in every student academic achievement metric, and arguably fits the culture (they were in the same league as ASU, UofA and Utah).

What is it that would make the public Ivies and the elite CA privates of the west want to have their name associated with Houston? I can see how those schools want to associate with Texas and Rice, and how they would find it more than tolerable to have high profile Oklahoma (another in the Arizona, Colorado, Oregon pile of top 100 flagship schools).

But when I get to Houston, I draw a blank. Oh, I see how Houston would benefit from the Pac-12. But that makes them no different than BYU, Kansas State, New Mexico, or San Diego State. None of those help the Pac-12's reputation as a group of elite schools.

And that is the whole point. To get UW and the California schools to invite a G5 school they have to help the reputation of the league. The last two schools they invited were their state's flagship schools in the top 50 of all research schools. This is a good indicator of what they want.The question they will ask is simple,"how does a UH, which goes 2-10 in football for 5 years, and 4-16 in Pac Basketball every year over the same stretch, help the reputation of the Pac as an elite collection of schools?"

You don't. Case closed. UW, Cal, UCLA, Stanford, USC and likely most of the others will vote NO.

Actually, Rice has the academics for a PAC 12 school, but NOT the athletics!! Exposure in athletics is just as important to the PAC 12 as academics is. Also, Rice has an extremely small alumni base as well which also would be too much for the PAC 12 to stomach. While some of the schools you mentioned, Stanford & USC, and some you didn't, like Oregon, Arizona State, and Oregon State, would be definite NO votes for Rice, unless Rice was needed to land the Longhorns. That is the ONLY way Rice gets in, apparently contrary to the desires to UW, who UO hates anyway, and Cal-Berkeley, who likes to think they're really important when they're really as important as they think they are.
If over time, UH really raises its academic profile, which it looks like it has been working on and brand awareness, they could be an add for the future.

I can't see my Cougars in p12 , it just doesn't seem or feel right, really far away too
I don't know where Houston will go next if anywhere, AAC seems to be trending up and if we get real TV money why not stay where we are unless the p5 completely cuts off cap money and a playoff path which is 99% closed as is

(06-18-2017 09:48 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 11:37 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Cougarred,

Your school is so far from the Pac-12 is comedic that you try to claim they fit. Does it matter if the comparison year is 2015 or 2012? These things change at a glacial rate. But the gap in graduation rates between the P12 schools and Houston is only one measure, and it is the one which Houston is closest. Far more important are the HERD numbers, and the gap is not 20% less than the bottom P12 schools, but more like 60% from the bottom. And this is the first number the P12 looks at. This one is a killer.

Stanford, USC, Cal, UCLA, UW (who control WSU) are HELL NO votes. This should shut down the entire topic. But somehow you think UH can win some votes somewhere, that an AD is powerful voice on these campuses like it is in the B12 or SEC. But I'm afraid not. The dynamic is very different, the ADs voice is much weaker. Athletics make up a far smaller percentage of the school's income (we are talking a ratio of 7:1 in favor of research, 4x the ratio in the SEC or B12). You can call it snooty, but it's not, it's the same, money comes first, just the source of the money is different.

Nothing about Houston fits the profile of a Pac-12 school. Rice and Texas do. Tech is borderline but has Texas pulling them in. CSU matches the culture, is not much different than the likes of UofA, ASU and Utah; Iowa State has AAU status and solid P5 athletics; TCU is highly selective and brings the DFW market; while SDSU out performs UH in every student academic achievement metric, and arguably fits the culture (they were in the same league as ASU, UofA and Utah).

What is it that would make the public Ivies and the elite CA privates of the west want to have their name associated with Houston? I can see how those schools want to associate with Texas and Rice, and how they would find it more than tolerable to have high profile Oklahoma (another in the Arizona, Colorado, Oregon pile of top 100 flagship schools).

But when I get to Houston, I draw a blank. Oh, I see how Houston would benefit from the Pac-12. But that makes them no different than BYU, Kansas State, New Mexico, or San Diego State. None of those help the Pac-12's reputation as a group of elite schools.

And that is the whole point. To get UW and the California schools to invite a G5 school they have to help the reputation of the league. The last two schools they invited were their state's flagship schools in the top 50 of all research schools. This is a good indicator of what they want.The question they will ask is simple,"how does a UH, which goes 2-10 in football for 5 years, and 4-16 in Pac Basketball every year over the same stretch, help the reputation of the Pac as an elite collection of schools?"

You don't. Case closed. UW, Cal, UCLA, Stanford, USC and likely most of the others will vote NO.

Actually, Rice has the academics for a PAC 12 school, but NOT the athletics!! Exposure in athletics is just as important to the PAC 12 as academics is. Also, Rice has an extremely small alumni base as well which also would be too much for the PAC 12 to stomach. While some of the schools you mentioned, Stanford & USC, and some you didn't, like Oregon, Arizona State, and Oregon State, would be definite NO votes for Rice, unless Rice was needed to land the Longhorns. That is the ONLY way Rice gets in, apparently contrary to the desires to UW, who UO hates anyway, and Cal-Berkeley, who likes to think they're really important when they're really as important as they think they are.
If over time, UH really raises its academic profile, which it looks like it has been working on and brand awareness, they could be an add for the future.

The ultimate problem with the University of Houston is at best they'd start out being the 4th most popular team in Texas (behind Texas Tech, Texas A&M, and Texas). That doesn't bode well for them getting invited on their own. The only way they get in is if the PAC-12 lands Texas with them (and probably Oklahoma), and honestly, I think that Texas Tech is the more attractive property at this point.

(06-17-2017 10:31 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  CougarRed,

The expected 6 year rate is 61% based on the demographics of the students coming in. The actual rate was 2015 was 48%, 2014 was 47%. So your school is 14% below expected results. (College Scorecard for all numbers, 2014-15 school year). Note New Mexico also had 48% but much lower expectation. The most comparable school I found was Oklahoma State, where a 61% expected graduation rate, and an actual rate of 60.3%

The 4 year rate, which is what I was using for comparison, because it shows the sharpest contrast is now 14%. So yes it has improved, slightly. But again far below the demographic expectation. It is in line with commuter schools like Memphis, UNLV and Boise State, who's expected rates ares much lower.

Again you make the mistake of comparing the lowest bar to get in. That is not the path for a G5 school in the South attempting to get into a Western conference. You have to meet the higher bar to overcome this.

Stanford 97.5%, USC 91%, Cal 90.9%, UCLA 90.7%, UW 82.8%

The low end:
CU 69.8%, Oregon 67.8%, WSU 66.4%, OSU 62.3%, Utah 61.3%, UofA 60.8%

Your competition and comps
Rice 91.3%, UC Davis 82.3%, Texas 80%, TCU 75.7%, ISU 68.5%, SDSU 66.1%, CSU 64.5%, OK State 60.3%, TTU 59.1%, K State 59%, Cincy 58.7% (for fun), UNM 48%, UH 48%, UNLV 40.9% (for Frank the Tank), BSU 36.9% (for Boise fans to get a reality check)

UNM's low score is partially explained by state admission requirements, and a plurality Hispanic (46%) student body.

Bottom line, there is no metric where UH academic come close to the P12. The very bottom of the P12 is 20% better than UH. When it comes to research, which is what it will take for any G5 to elevate to P5 in any conference not named Big XII, UH R&D is at about 35-40% of what it needs to be for the cabal of UW and the CA four to accept your membership.

You love to run by some stat that shows UH is barely better than some bottom feeder. But the same source for information when looking at all the schools says something else. As I have tried to explain to you, the B12 schools would provide the immediate Athletic boost. Any G5 elevated to the Pac must help elevate the Academic prestige of the conference. UH does not do that.

UW, Cal, Stanford, USC, and UCLA decide who gets in. Texas would very much be in line with them. There is zero chance UH could get any of their votes.

WRONG. The Pac-12 already HAS academic prestige. Thats not why they would be expanding. They would be expanding for REVENUE. Rice isnt going to provide the Pac12 with revenue--Pac12 athletic boost or not. Its tiny alumni base has no grip on the local or statewide population.

The Pac12 will not expand to Texas with a school that cant provide a revenue boost. Such a move would literally fly in the face of the ENTIRE purpose of a Pac-12 expansion. They may or may not choose UH---but Rice is a no way propostion because it doesnt clear the very first hurddle---Rice doesnt make the Pac12 money. To believe Rice will get a Pac12 invite over Houston is to not understand the entire purpose of the move.

(06-18-2017 09:48 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  I can't see my Cougars in p12 , it just doesn't seem or feel right, really far away too
I don't know where Houston will go next if anywhere, AAC seems to be trending up and if we get real TV money why not stay where we are unless the p5 completely cuts off cap money and a playoff path which is 99% closed as is

Get comfy. We are going to be in the AAC for while. I dont see any major opportunities for a G5 to move to a P5 conference until the 2024-2025 time frame (when the Big12 GOR expires). At that point, if the Pac12 cant land the University of Texas, then (and only then) are they likely to consider G5 options for gaining access to Texas subscribers for the Pac12 Network.

Athletics is Rice's problem. And it's a big problem. If they decide they want to be in a power conference and throw serious money and effort at athletics in the next five years, then they are in the picture. But that is how short the window is for them. They can't talk about 10 years from now we'll do something.

I concede on the WAC. That conference changes lineups so often, it's hard to keep it straight. Whatever, SDSU is culturally part of the West. With historical ties. And SDSU was in the MWC with Utah (and TCU).

The numbers for Houston are accurate and the exact same year and the same source as all the schools it is compared to. 2014/2015 numbers are not going to be different than 2017 numbers except at the margins. CougarRed may go ape over 14% instead of 12% graduation rate in four years, but it's trivial in the Pac-12 where 30% and above is the level for the current schools. And he may claim whatever he wants about research, but the HERD numbers say Houston's R&D is about 40% of the lowest Pac-12 school. That is death for a candidate who is not even in P5.

I fully agree on exiting B12 schools have a huge edge if the Pac goes to 16. The same 4 they tried to add in 2010 would be the choices (Texas, OU, Tech, OSU). But OU is almost certainly going to go to the SEC or B1G over the Pac, and it's not a close call. So you are looking only at Texas.

I went through all the various scenarios, mostly to show no matter what criteria you use, Houston finishes 7th to 9th on the Pac list of options. My own view is this:

the Pac-12 would want to stop at 14, Texas and Texas Tech. It gets very hard to pick any schools after that. TCU has the classroom performance, DFW market, but lacks research; ISU is out if footprint; CSU has the CU blocking issue; Rice has not invested enough in athletics; Baylor and BYU are unacceptable, even pariahs; Everyone else fails to meet the academics and research levels. TCU and CSU are the most likely, if they can get the votes.

(06-18-2017 09:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Good grief ... graduation rates are almost as meaningless of a metric as acceptance rate, when it comes to academics.

There are a million and one valid reasons why a student might choose not to and/or might not be able to graduate within six years of starting at a school, that have nothing to do with the academics of the school.

That may be true and a valid point but the average person generally sees otherwise.

(06-18-2017 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-18-2017 09:48 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  I can't see my Cougars in p12 , it just doesn't seem or feel right, really far away too
I don't know where Houston will go next if anywhere, AAC seems to be trending up and if we get real TV money why not stay where we are unless the p5 completely cuts off cap money and a playoff path which is 99% closed as is

Get comfy. We are going to be in the AAC for while. I dont see any major opportunities for a G5 to move to a P5 conference until the 2024-2025 time frame (when the Big12 GOR expires). At that point, if the Pac12 cant land the University of Texas, then (and only then) are they likely to consider G5 options for gaining access to Texas subscribers for the Pac12 Network.

I will say that I want Houston to continue in the AAC because...well it should be obvious. It's convenient for me.

(06-18-2017 12:33 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Athletics is Rice's problem. And it's a big problem. If they decide they want to be in a power conference and throw serious money and effort at athletics in the next five years, then they are in the picture. But that is how short the window is for them. They can't talk about 10 years from now we'll do something.

I concede on the WAC. That conference changes lineups so often, it's hard to keep it straight. Whatever, SDSU is culturally part of the West. With historical ties. And SDSU was in the MWC with Utah (and TCU).

The numbers for Houston are accurate and the exact same year and the same source as all the schools it is compared to. 2014/2015 numbers are not going to be different than 2017 numbers except at the margins. CougarRed may go ape over 14% instead of 12% graduation rate in four years, but it's trivial in the Pac-12 where 30% and above is the level for the current schools. And he may claim whatever he wants about research, but the HERD numbers say Houston's R&D is about 40% of the lowest Pac-12 school. That is death for a candidate who is not even in P5.

I fully agree on exiting B12 schools have a huge edge if the Pac goes to 16. The same 4 they tried to add in 2010 would be the choices (Texas, OU, Tech, OSU). But OU is almost certainly going to go to the SEC or B1G over the Pac, and it's not a close call. So you are looking only at Texas.

I went through all the various scenarios, mostly to show no matter what criteria you use, Houston finishes 7th to 9th on the Pac list of options. My own view is this:

the Pac-12 would want to stop at 14, Texas and Texas Tech. It gets very hard to pick any schools after that. TCU has the classroom performance, DFW market, but lacks research; ISU is out if footprint; CSU has the CU blocking issue; Rice has not invested enough in athletics; Baylor and BYU are unacceptable, even pariahs; Everyone else fails to meet the academics and research levels. TCU and CSU are the most likely, if they can get the votes.

If the Pac were to expand further there really is no way for them to stop at 14 as you would never be able to align the conference successfully. The California schools requirment to play each other annually basically kills any North/South or zipper based divisional model and in an East/West split you still have the Mountain schools not wanting to be displaced into the East but you are also adding one of the Northwest schools to that mix as well.

Cclpp1,

Yeah the zipper has issues. A 10 game football schedule is basically required so all the NW and all the CA games get played. If you play only 9 games and the Pac gives in (and they would, 8 of 14 schools) to rivalry games Cal-USC, Staford-UCLA, Oregon-WSU, UW-OSU, then Texas would visit say Stanford, USC, Oregon and Washington only once every 10 years! At ten games that would be reduced to once every 5 years, which everyone would be happier with.

Basketball (and women's Volleyball) would move to 20 games either way. 14 works better as you host your designated rival every year, and you host the other 12 schools 3 times every 4 years. With 16 you lose the designated rival, or go to unbalanced scheduling.

The problem I see is getting #15 and #16. Can you get CU to back off on CSU? Is TCU acceptable enough even though they do zero research? Otherwise you are looking at schools like Iowa State, Kansas State and Rice. It's just not very attractive. If Rice decides tomorrow to add $15M to their annual athletic budget and it starts to show results in the next few years, then the situation is a lot different, and it's much easier to get to 16. But as things stand now, that is a super tough sell to the Presidents and Chancellors in CA and WA.

(06-18-2017 04:21 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Cclpp1,

Yeah the zipper has issues. A 10 game football schedule is basically required so all the NW and all the CA games get played. If you play only 9 games and the Pac gives in (and they would, 8 of 14 schools) to rivalry games Cal-USC, Staford-UCLA, Oregon-WSU, UW-OSU, then Texas would visit say Stanford, USC, Oregon and Washington only once every 10 years! At ten games that would be reduced to once every 5 years, which everyone would be happier with.

Basketball (and women's Volleyball) would move to 20 games either way. 14 works better as you host your designated rival every year, and you host the other 12 schools 3 times every 4 years. With 16 you lose the designated rival, or go to unbalanced scheduling.

The problem I see is getting #15 and #16. Can you get CU to back off on CSU? Is TCU acceptable enough even though they do zero research? Otherwise you are looking at schools like Iowa State, Kansas State and Rice. It's just not very attractive. If Rice decides tomorrow to add $15M to their annual athletic budget and it starts to show results in the next few years, then the situation is a lot different, and it's much easier to get to 16. But as things stand now, that is a super tough sell to the Presidents and Chancellors in CA and WA.

I don't know how much resistance Colorado would have to Colorado State joining the conference as it seems that it would alleviate the burden of sacrificing one of their 3 OOC games every season on the RMS.

TCU would be pretty far down the Pac12 expansion wishlist and IMO a school like Rice would be ahead of them if you are just comparing each candidate in a bubble but the wildcard would be Texas and what they want. If we are operating under the assumption that the Oklahoma duo and Kansas are unavailable then it becomes much more likely to be a situation where you go hey Texas pick 3 friends to join not named Baylor, BYU or SMU.

Also I can't see the Pac moving to 10 conference games, a few years ago when the Big10 & Pac12 were discussing an annual football challenge there was quite a bit of resistance from several schools in the Pac about limiting their OOC scheduling that ended up stopping that arrangement and this I believe would follow the same trajectory as those discussions.

(06-18-2017 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 10:31 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  CougarRed,

The expected 6 year rate is 61% based on the demographics of the students coming in. The actual rate was 2015 was 48%, 2014 was 47%. So your school is 14% below expected results. (College Scorecard for all numbers, 2014-15 school year). Note New Mexico also had 48% but much lower expectation. The most comparable school I found was Oklahoma State, where a 61% expected graduation rate, and an actual rate of 60.3%

The 4 year rate, which is what I was using for comparison, because it shows the sharpest contrast is now 14%. So yes it has improved, slightly. But again far below the demographic expectation. It is in line with commuter schools like Memphis, UNLV and Boise State, who's expected rates ares much lower.

Again you make the mistake of comparing the lowest bar to get in. That is not the path for a G5 school in the South attempting to get into a Western conference. You have to meet the higher bar to overcome this.

Stanford 97.5%, USC 91%, Cal 90.9%, UCLA 90.7%, UW 82.8%

The low end:
CU 69.8%, Oregon 67.8%, WSU 66.4%, OSU 62.3%, Utah 61.3%, UofA 60.8%

Your competition and comps
Rice 91.3%, UC Davis 82.3%, Texas 80%, TCU 75.7%, ISU 68.5%, SDSU 66.1%, CSU 64.5%, OK State 60.3%, TTU 59.1%, K State 59%, Cincy 58.7% (for fun), UNM 48%, UH 48%, UNLV 40.9% (for Frank the Tank), BSU 36.9% (for Boise fans to get a reality check)

UNM's low score is partially explained by state admission requirements, and a plurality Hispanic (46%) student body.

Bottom line, there is no metric where UH academic come close to the P12. The very bottom of the P12 is 20% better than UH. When it comes to research, which is what it will take for any G5 to elevate to P5 in any conference not named Big XII, UH R&D is at about 35-40% of what it needs to be for the cabal of UW and the CA four to accept your membership.

You love to run by some stat that shows UH is barely better than some bottom feeder. But the same source for information when looking at all the schools says something else. As I have tried to explain to you, the B12 schools would provide the immediate Athletic boost. Any G5 elevated to the Pac must help elevate the Academic prestige of the conference. UH does not do that.

UW, Cal, Stanford, USC, and UCLA decide who gets in. Texas would very much be in line with them. There is zero chance UH could get any of their votes.

WRONG. The Pac-12 already HAS academic prestige. Thats not why they would be expanding. They would be expanding for REVENUE. Rice isnt going to provide the Pac12 with revenue--Pac12 athletic boost or not. Its tiny alumni base has no grip on the local or statewide population.

The Pac12 will not expand to Texas with a school that cant provide a revenue boost. Such a move would literally fly in the face of the ENTIRE purpose of a Pac-12 expansion. They may or may not choose UH---but Rice is a no way propostion because it doesnt clear the very first hurddle---Rice doesnt make the Pac12 money. To believe Rice will get a Pac12 invite over Houston is to not understand the entire purpose of the move.

This is in the case in favor of Boise State gaining access to the PAC 12. Every year Boise State keeps winning? It draws fans away from Washington State for a winner closeby. We have seen some of the best players from Eastern Washington going to Boise State instead of Washington State. Kellen Moore is an example of how Boise State can be successful of recruiting good players away from Washington State. That means the revenue is leaving from Eastern Washington towards Boise State's favor. As it is, Boise State's fanbase is starting to overtake the fanbase of Washington State in the the state of Washington on the east side.

(06-18-2017 06:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-18-2017 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 10:31 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  CougarRed,

The expected 6 year rate is 61% based on the demographics of the students coming in. The actual rate was 2015 was 48%, 2014 was 47%. So your school is 14% below expected results. (College Scorecard for all numbers, 2014-15 school year). Note New Mexico also had 48% but much lower expectation. The most comparable school I found was Oklahoma State, where a 61% expected graduation rate, and an actual rate of 60.3%

The 4 year rate, which is what I was using for comparison, because it shows the sharpest contrast is now 14%. So yes it has improved, slightly. But again far below the demographic expectation. It is in line with commuter schools like Memphis, UNLV and Boise State, who's expected rates ares much lower.

Again you make the mistake of comparing the lowest bar to get in. That is not the path for a G5 school in the South attempting to get into a Western conference. You have to meet the higher bar to overcome this

Stanford 97.5%, USC 91%, Cal 90.9%, UCLA 90.7%, UW 82.8%

The low end:
CU 69.8%, Oregon 67.8%, WSU 66.4%, OSU 62.3%, Utah 61.3%, UofA 60.8%

Your competition and comps
Rice 91.3%, UC Davis 82.3%, Texas 80%, TCU 75.7%, ISU 68.5%, SDSU 66.1%, CSU 64.5%, OK State 60.3%, TTU 59.1%, K State 59%, Cincy 58.7% (for fun), UNM 48%, UH 48%, UNLV 40.9% (for Frank the Tank), BSU 36.9% (for Boise fans to get a reality check)

UNM's low score is partially explained by state admission requirements, and a plurality Hispanic (46%) student body.

Bottom line, there is no metric where UH academic come close to the P12. The very bottom of the P12 is 20% better than UH. When it comes to research, which is what it will take for any G5 to elevate to P5 in any conference not named Big XII, UH R&D is at about 35-40% of what it needs to be for the cabal of UW and the CA four to accept your membership.

You love to run by some stat that shows UH is barely better than some bottom feeder. But the same source for information when looking at all the schools says something else. As I have tried to explain to you, the B12 schools would provide the immediate Athletic boost. Any G5 elevated to the Pac must help elevate the Academic prestige of the conference. UH does not do that.

UW, Cal, Stanford, USC, and UCLA decide who gets in. Texas would very much be in line with them. There is zero chance UH could get any of their votes.

WRONG. The Pac-12 already HAS academic prestige. Thats not why they would be expanding. They would be expanding for REVENUE. Rice isnt going to provide the Pac12 with revenue--Pac12 athletic boost or not. Its tiny alumni base has no grip on the local or statewide population.

The Pac12 will not expand to Texas with a school that cant provide a revenue boost. Such a move would literally fly in the face of the ENTIRE purpose of a Pac-12 expansion. They may or may not choose UH---but Rice is a no way propostion because it doesnt clear the very first hurddle---Rice doesnt make the Pac12 money. To believe Rice will get a Pac12 invite over Houston is to not understand the entire purpose of the move.

This is in the case in favor of Boise State gaining access to the PAC 12. Every year Boise State keeps winning? It draws fans away from Washington State for a winner closeby. We have seen some of the best players from Eastern Washington going to Boise State instead of Washington State. Kellen Moore is an example of how Boise State can be successful of recruiting good players away from Washington State. That means the revenue is leaving from Eastern Washington towards Boise State's favor. As it is, Boise State's fanbase is starting to overtake the fanbase of Washington State in the the state of Washington on the east side.

You clearly don't understand why the Pac12 Network is the least successful conference network. Boise isn't the answer--nor is adding any other state with populations of 1-3 million. Texas, with 27 million people is the only answer for what ailes the P12N----and its only part of the answer.

The answer is adding Texas to the league and a 50% equity sale to a media partner.

The latter is the most important because it will
1) generate a large amount of revenue for P12 schools (such sales have 5:1 or even 10:1 valuation ratios)
2) allow the P12 office to unload some high salary people who run P12N, reducing cost and overhead
-- P12N has much higher overhead than B1G, eating $2M a year in each school's take (per Jon Wilner reporting)
3) media partner can use their size and power to get better carriage, both digital and cable, also better rates

As we move a la cart and digital, the addition of schools can be more case by case. But still having UT gives you carriage in all of Texas, and even with cable fees a smaller piece of the pie, will still be significant. Also the equity sale also offer Texas and ESPN early outs on the LHN.

Other schools besides Texas will have to take sharply lower payments, as they will have to buy into the P12N, even with an equity sale (examine Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland lower initial distributions; SEC schools don;t have that as they don't have any equity in the SECN ... very attractive for OU and Ok St)

The only way Boise is getting in the Pac is if it becomes the University of Idaho at Boise. And even that guarantees nothing.

(06-18-2017 08:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-18-2017 06:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-18-2017 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 10:31 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  CougarRed,
Bottom line, there is no metric where UH academic come close to the P12. The very bottom of the P12 is 20% better than UH. When it comes to research, which is what it will take for any G5 to elevate to P5 in any conference not named Big XII, UH R&D is at about 35-40% of what it needs to be for the cabal of UW and the CA four to accept your membership.

You love to run by some stat that shows UH is barely better than some bottom feeder. But the same source for information when looking at all the schools says something else. As I have tried to explain to you, the B12 schools would provide the immediate Athletic boost. Any G5 elevated to the Pac must help elevate the Academic prestige of the conference. UH does not do that.

UW, Cal, Stanford, USC, and UCLA decide who gets in. Texas would very much be in line with them. There is zero chance UH could get any of their votes.

WRONG. The Pac-12 already HAS academic prestige. Thats not why they would be expanding. They would be expanding for REVENUE. Rice isnt going to provide the Pac12 with revenue--Pac12 athletic boost or not. Its tiny alumni base has no grip on the local or statewide population.

You clearly don't understand why the Pac12 Network is the least successful conference network. Boise isn't the answer--nor is adding any other state with populations of 1-3 million. Texas, with 27 million people is the only answer for what ailes the P12N----and its only part of the answer.

They need UT and..... End of subject. If you had to start listing possible adds Boise won't be in the top 20. If you are to add only 2, UT and OLK have to be the 2.

What about the Big 12 adding 6 Pac-12 teams?

(06-19-2017 08:52 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  What about the Big 12 adding 6 Pac-12 teams?

I could see 3-4. When the B1G takes USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, and may be Utah - then the B12 expands WEST with Arizona St., Oregon St., Washington St., BYU, and two of Colorado St./UNLV/Boise/SDSU/New Mexico.

(06-19-2017 08:52 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  What about the Big 12 adding 6 Pac-12 teams?

Honestly, a near merger of the 2 conferences would be the answer to the issues of both conferences. The Big12 gets their illusive network. The Pac12 gets a large enough footprint to make their 100% owned Pac12 network work.

It would probably be a more of a semi-"merger" like the SWC/Big8 merger where some schools don't make the cut. It would either be a few Pac-12 schools that get left out or a few Big 12 schools that get left out. Given that each Pac12 schools has an ownership interest in the Pac12 Network, its probably going to require that 4 Big12 teams get left out in order to keep the numbers manageable. Such a merger creates the first 18 school super conference (skips right over the 16 school barrier), covers the entire country west of the Mississippi, and creates the long predicted 4-power conference scenario.