The playoff era has not been kind to the Pac 12. If they continue to slip out of the national spotlight at what point do the top programs send feelers to the Big Ten about admitting a West Coast wing?

The other option is pursuing Big 12 schools but to attract the schools they desire they are going to have to do some major sweet talking.

I would ask why do they think salvation lies with Texas and not schools from Oklahoma and north?

Football is cyclical.

I don’t think they will be panicking nor is there any need to.

Pac-12 needs to learn how to play the game
expand [Hawaii & Hous]
more games to sell & Tex would help with recuriting
fix PacN
get them brilliant marketing dept to put people in seats
thier biggest promblem, they play the toughest OOC sch
along with 9 conf games
i don't know if weaking sch is the answer tough

(10-20-2018 07:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The playoff era has not been kind to the Pac 12. If they continue to slip out of the national spotlight at what point do the top programs send feelers to the Big Ten about admitting a West Coast wing?

The other option is pursuing Big 12 schools but to attract the schools they desire they are going to have to do some major sweet talking.

My guess would be next year, but it will depend on a few things.

1) Their network continues to flounder and doesn't seem able to secure rights deals with major providers.

2) They get left out of the CFP this year and next.

3) The type of TV/media deal the AAC signs and what kind of $$$ they will command.

I know some people are hoping the PAC will be able to lure OU and/or TX into the fold but I just don't see that happening. Both will have better better options available to them than going to the PAC. I still believe that in the end (assuming there are no major surprises) the PAC will either form some sort of "scheduling alliance" with the B1G or will split themselves up between the XII, B1G and independent.

I don't know that there is really anything the conference can do short of fixing the games.

The top 6 Pac-12 teams per ESPN FPI
Washington, Utah, Stanford, Washington State, Oregon, USC in that order.

First problem of the top 4 only one is a brand that is going to roll off the fingers of an AP voter without some thought. It's easy to vote USC, Oregon and even Stanford if they are doing well. Washington is the great up down, Utah still has some voters out east thinking they are MWC and Washington State is the flag at GameDay and crazy coach antics.

The league cannot help that the names people have built in to be inclined to vote for aren't killing it right now.

Let's look at those six.
USC has one non-conference loss, to Texas
Oregon no non-conference losses
Washington State no non-conference losses
Stanford lost to Notre Dame
Utah no non-conference losses
Washington, lost to Auburn.

So your top half of the league has 12 losses but only two to non-conference opponents.

The only way to fix that is to fix games and I don't think the Pac-12 is that desperate yet.

There is nothing for the league to do but keep competing and hope a strong one or two eventually emerge that can be CFP contenders.

(10-22-2018 08:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't know that there is really anything the conference can do short of fixing the games.

The top 6 Pac-12 teams per ESPN FPI
Washington, Utah, Stanford, Washington State, Oregon, USC in that order.

First problem of the top 4 only one is a brand that is going to roll off the fingers of an AP voter without some thought. It's easy to vote USC, Oregon and even Stanford if they are doing well. Washington is the great up down, Utah still has some voters out east thinking they are MWC and Washington State is the flag at GameDay and crazy coach antics.

The league cannot help that the names people have built in to be inclined to vote for aren't killing it right now.

Let's look at those six.
USC has one non-conference loss, to Texas
Oregon no non-conference losses
Washington State no non-conference losses
Stanford lost to Notre Dame
Utah no non-conference losses
Washington, lost to Auburn.

So your top half of the league has 12 losses but only two to non-conference opponents.

The only way to fix that is to fix games and I don't think the Pac-12 is that desperate yet.

There is nothing for the league to do but keep competing and hope a strong one or two eventually emerge that can be CFP contenders.

That's a pretty solid analysis. But there is one other thing they could do to help their cause. I understand the reasons why the PAC schedules 9 league games despite having only 12 teams. But that extra game guarantees that PAC teams combined will have 6 more losses every year. Some of those are going to hurt their CFP chances.

I would put Cal and Stanford in the PAC South, and move Colorado and Utah to the PAC North. I would have an 8 game conference schedule with no protected crossovers (all necessary annual games are now all division games).

Arrange the schedule so nobody plays both Washington and Oregon or USC and Stanford OOD in the same year.

Everybody in the PAC North plays one Bay Area and one LA team every year - one home and one away. If it's important to Colorado and Utah to play more often in California, they now have an additional OOC game they can use to play San Diego State, Fresno State or San Jose State.

It's just an incremental improvement to the PAC's CFP chances, but often the difference between being in or out is pretty small.

(10-22-2018 09:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 08:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't know that there is really anything the conference can do short of fixing the games.

The top 6 Pac-12 teams per ESPN FPI
Washington, Utah, Stanford, Washington State, Oregon, USC in that order.

First problem of the top 4 only one is a brand that is going to roll off the fingers of an AP voter without some thought. It's easy to vote USC, Oregon and even Stanford if they are doing well. Washington is the great up down, Utah still has some voters out east thinking they are MWC and Washington State is the flag at GameDay and crazy coach antics.

The league cannot help that the names people have built in to be inclined to vote for aren't killing it right now.

Let's look at those six.
USC has one non-conference loss, to Texas
Oregon no non-conference losses
Washington State no non-conference losses
Stanford lost to Notre Dame
Utah no non-conference losses
Washington, lost to Auburn.

So your top half of the league has 12 losses but only two to non-conference opponents.

The only way to fix that is to fix games and I don't think the Pac-12 is that desperate yet.

There is nothing for the league to do but keep competing and hope a strong one or two eventually emerge that can be CFP contenders.

That's a pretty solid analysis. But there is one other thing they could do to help their cause. I understand the reasons why the PAC schedules 9 league games despite having only 12 teams. But that extra game guarantees that PAC teams combined will have 6 more losses every year. Some of those are going to hurt their CFP chances.

I would put Cal and Stanford in the PAC South, and move Colorado and Utah to the PAC North. I would have an 8 game conference schedule with no protected crossovers (all necessary annual games are now all division games).

Arrange the schedule so nobody plays both Washington and Oregon or USC and Stanford OOD in the same year.

Everybody in the PAC North plays one Bay Area and one LA team every year - one home and one away. If it's important to Colorado and Utah to play more often in California, they now have an additional OOC game they can use to play San Diego State, Fresno State or San Jose State.

It's just an incremental improvement to the PAC's CFP chances, but often the difference between being in or out is pretty small.

In a lab setting, I think you are correct.

Reality, there are only 14 FBS in the Mountain time zone or west of there that aren't in the Pac-12.

The Pac-12 has what appears to be an abnormally high number of games at G5s (admittedly Hawaii is a bit of a bonus).

I'm not sure that adding 12 non-conference games isn't going to back them into scheduling close to six added losses, especially those already scheduling FCS.

Playing a high G5 like UCF or Houston on the road isn't going to be a sure thing, and they are already playing games like that.

Then of course there is the whole matter of everyone wants to play at USC and UCLA and host USC and UCLA, nine reduces the skips and keeps schools happier.

In theory I think you are correct, in practice I think it is unlikely to get approved and if approved, the scheduling that results may not be helpful.

Can't help but keep thinking that if Rice and Tulane had committed the resources to keep football and basketball competitive, the landscape would be so much more interesting now. Because these guys would be somewhere, and I think, at least for Rice, maybe that is the PAC.

I think there's a puncher's chance Rice still winds up there. Seems crazy, and probably is...still can't shake this feeling these guys can still climb. Even if right now, they look awwwwwful.

(10-22-2018 01:13 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Can't help but keep thinking that if Rice and Tulane had committed the resources to keep football and basketball competitive, the landscape would be so much more interesting now. Because these guys would be somewhere, and I think, at least for Rice, maybe that is the PAC.

I think there's a puncher's chance Rice still winds up there. Seems crazy, and probably is...still can't shake this feeling these guys can still climb. Even if right now, they look awwwwwful.

There was a time very recently when I opined that Tulane might have the worst record in the FBS. Turns out I was wrong - Rice has been even worse. They have only won 35% of their games over the past 45 years, and that's counting wins over FCS teams. They have won 6 or more games only ten years out of 45.

To have a puncher's chance you must first be a puncher. I don't think Rice is.

I haven't checked out the Owls' basketball record during that time, but I doubt it's much better. They really don't add anything the PAC needs.

(10-22-2018 02:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  I haven't checked out the Owls' basketball record during that time, but I doubt it's much better. They really don't add anything the PAC needs.

Except a school that makes the academic cut for the PAC, in Texas, and in its largest city. I used to think there was a strategic need for Rice in that if you could nab Texas, partner them with Rice, and you had an interesting way for Texas to move with a school that passed the academic sight test. I don't think it means anything.

I don't disagree, though. They suck. Football's bad. Basketball is without a pulse.

But, they've been active. They spent some money to repair their stadium. And, they approached the MWC and Big XII about membership. They aren't very committed on paper...but they aren't dead yet. And to hear the MWC was actually interested in them, even if briefly...others couldn't get a sniff, but Rice can? That is odd for a program that is so bad.

This board's obsession with Rice and Tulane is really bizarre.

(10-22-2018 03:13 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This board's obsession with Rice and Tulane is really bizarre.

Marketz and presidents like academics.

But presidents also like moves that bolster the athletic department income in addition to being good at academics and exposing the world to their university in an attractive market.

Rice and Tulane don't draw significant TV audiences, so no one is getting paid for adding them.

(10-22-2018 03:13 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This board's obsession with Rice and Tulane is really bizarre.

For those of us fans of the Big East, imagine our surprise when Tulane is announced as a member.

Or, when Rice is discussed for membership for the MWC.

It's not obsession. Clearly, these schools' academic reputations mean something to other school presidents. They come up so often here because they keep popping up in realignment talks.

(10-22-2018 04:01 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 03:13 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This board's obsession with Rice and Tulane is really bizarre.

For those of us fans of the Big East, imagine our surprise when Tulane is announced as a member.

Or, when Rice is discussed for membership for the MWC.

It's not obsession. Clearly, these schools' academic reputations mean something to other school presidents. They come up so often here because they keep popping up in realignment talks.

Unfortunately, those reputations don't matter to boosters, fans and media partners. They only matter to those academics who don't care about athletics, or worse who resent the role of athletics.

This is where they keep popping up in realignment talks. To say that this is why they come up here is circular reasoning.

(10-22-2018 05:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 04:01 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 03:13 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This board's obsession with Rice and Tulane is really bizarre.

For those of us fans of the Big East, imagine our surprise when Tulane is announced as a member.

Or, when Rice is discussed for membership for the MWC.

It's not obsession. Clearly, these schools' academic reputations mean something to other school presidents. They come up so often here because they keep popping up in realignment talks.

Unfortunately, those reputations don't matter to boosters, fans and media partners. They only matter to those academics who don't care about athletics, or worse who resent the role of athletics.

This is where they keep popping up in realignment talks. To say that this is why they come up here is circular reasoning.

As Frank the Tank says, you have to think like a university president. The Big East was enthralled with Navy. Tulane had a lot of support in the last round of Big 12 expansion talks. Rice and SMU made the final 11. Memphis and New Mexico didn't make the cut.

(10-23-2018 04:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 05:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 04:01 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 03:13 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This board's obsession with Rice and Tulane is really bizarre.

For those of us fans of the Big East, imagine our surprise when Tulane is announced as a member.

Or, when Rice is discussed for membership for the MWC.

It's not obsession. Clearly, these schools' academic reputations mean something to other school presidents. They come up so often here because they keep popping up in realignment talks.

Unfortunately, those reputations don't matter to boosters, fans and media partners. They only matter to those academics who don't care about athletics, or worse who resent the role of athletics.

This is where they keep popping up in realignment talks. To say that this is why they come up here is circular reasoning.

As Frank the Tank says, you have to think like a university president. The Big East was enthralled with Navy. Tulane had a lot of support in the last round of Big 12 expansion talks. Rice and SMU made the final 11. Memphis and New Mexico didn't make the cut.

All those schools had varying degrees of support which rapidly dissipated when the adults, ie, the nets, explained to the college presidents that the nets weren't about to pay P-5 rates for G-class schools. Money talks and BS walks.

Fans often believe that xyz school in the SouthWestMiddleAtlanticSeaboard Conference would make a great add because they went 10-2 last season. Records don't count. How many fans will tune in on a Saturday afternoon to watch the beer/car/pizza commercials determine how a school will fare in realignment.

(10-23-2018 04:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 05:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 04:01 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 03:13 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This board's obsession with Rice and Tulane is really bizarre.

For those of us fans of the Big East, imagine our surprise when Tulane is announced as a member.

Or, when Rice is discussed for membership for the MWC.

It's not obsession. Clearly, these schools' academic reputations mean something to other school presidents. They come up so often here because they keep popping up in realignment talks.

Unfortunately, those reputations don't matter to boosters, fans and media partners. They only matter to those academics who don't care about athletics, or worse who resent the role of athletics.

This is where they keep popping up in realignment talks. To say that this is why they come up here is circular reasoning.

As Frank the Tank says, you have to think like a university president. The Big East was enthralled with Navy. Tulane had a lot of support in the last round of Big 12 expansion talks. Rice and SMU made the final 11. Memphis and New Mexico didn't make the cut.

Yeah. And, really, I get it...I’m tired of hawking the Rice and Tulane thing. But, it sits out there because they curry some favor, for whatever reason, despite a ton of downsides we as fans and television viewers see that are quickly reminded “doesn’t matter” when it comes to the presidents.

I mean, if one thinks about it, consider how ANY conference would bulk up with both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. And, then consider that OSU was pretty much dog crap to PAC presidents who would rather go without even Oklahoma because they came with another school that was “unworthy.” Nuts to me...I’m not a school president, though.

Tulane is in the AAC, and they aren't doing a damn thing for anyone else in the conference. They haven't added additional media revenue, they don't increase anyone else's academic rankings, we don't share in their endowment, and they don't travel fans (honestly, they brought 2 fans for their alumni event in Cincinnati this year). There home attendance is trash--- a couple years ago UC hoops played at Tulane and we had more people in the stands than they did. Sure, they might get a little bump being in a P5 conference, but still probably would not be as much of a bump as where Houston, UCF/USF, Cincinnati and Memphis already are not to mention their potential.

(10-22-2018 04:01 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 03:13 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  This board's obsession with Rice and Tulane is really bizarre.

For those of us fans of the Big East, imagine our surprise when Tulane is announced as a member.

Or, when Rice is discussed for membership for the MWC.

It's not obsession. Clearly, these schools' academic reputations mean something to other school presidents. They come up so often here because they keep popping up in realignment talks.

They keep popping up because they easily clear the "academically good enough" hurdles.

And they also keep popping up because they ALWAYS end up near the bottom of the "adds media value to the conference" ranking which is done to the schools that are "good enough academically" to be considered.

So they are still out there the next time somebody is looking, and says, "which are the schools that are academically good enough in about the right areas"

And then if they again pass the pre-screening, they again fail the preference ranking.

Repeat, ad nauseum.

Tulane was lucky to be at the right place at the right time with an advantageous (to them) hair-brained strategic vision by a conference commission when the old Big East was in the middle of a ongoing get raided, reload, get raided, reload cycle. IMNSHO, if they are going to step up, they can try first stepping up to the AAC level where they are officially located at.