They couldn't, unless most-all of the current MW's teams had already gone elsewhere.

Will you rank the Mountain West teams in the order that they will be added to the Pac-12?
I’m not sure that any will be added, but if there’s movement …

1. San Diego State
2. Fresno State
3. UNLV

And please note: SDSU is on a different tier! We give the Aztecs a 50 percent chance of getting in. Nobody else is above 25 percent.

Why so slow on adding San Diego State? Is it because of the Aztecs or the lack of a good option to pair with them?

Nothing has slowed down the process. If the Pac-12 decides to expand, any substantive developments are weeks, if not months away. And yes, the lack of an obvious 12th team could be problematic for the Aztecs.

Link
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/05/h...-and-more/

(08-07-2022 09:02 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Will you rank the Mountain West teams in the order that they will be added to the Pac-12?
I’m not sure that any will be added, but if there’s movement …

1. San Diego State
2. Fresno State
3. UNLV

And please note: SDSU is on a different tier! We give the Aztecs a 50 percent chance of getting in. Nobody else is above 25 percent.

Why so slow on adding San Diego State? Is it because of the Aztecs or the lack of a good option to pair with them?

Nothing has slowed down the process. If the Pac-12 decides to expand, any substantive developments are weeks, if not months away. And yes, the lack of an obvious 12th team could be problematic for the Aztecs.

Link
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/05/h...-and-more/

With only MWC/AAC schools:

1. San Diego St
(Large Gap)
2. SMU
(Small Gap)
3. UNLV
(Large Gap)
4. Hawaii
5. Colorado St
6. Boise St

(07-30-2022 02:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  14 with SDSU, Boise, Col St and SMU. Give them all half shares for the first contract.

They have to be worth something collectively on the basis of inventory alone.

IMO that would be a fatal lineup for the PAC, it would denigrate the brand.

(08-07-2022 09:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  14 with SDSU, Boise, Col St and SMU. Give them all half shares for the first contract.

They have to be worth something collectively on the basis of inventory alone.

IMO that would be a fatal lineup for the PAC, it would denigrate the brand.

How so? Colorado state would be the only one not pulling their weight on the field but at least brings an instate rival game to in conference.

SMU adds new state/big market and alumni with deep pockets. Also 2nd biggest student population for SMU is actually from California. Something like 18% of student body.

Boise adds new state and good football.
SDSU good football and helps hold onto south California market

(08-07-2022 09:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  14 with SDSU, Boise, Col St and SMU. Give them all half shares for the first contract.

They have to be worth something collectively on the basis of inventory alone.

IMO that would be a fatal lineup for the PAC, it would denigrate the brand.

See press release tomorrow Quo

(07-30-2022 06:18 PM)Poster Wrote:  Big markets where nobody follows the team aren't a positive unless you have a conference network.

True, that.

Quote:....
(For that matter, the ACC network is an embarrassing flop that should be discontinued too.)

Not so. The ACC Network makes good money for conference members (and ESPN). The ACC has the most profitable college athletics network outside the B1G and SEC, which got earlier starts; ask the PAC or B12 if they'd like to be able to say that.

The ACC Network launched late, just in time for Covid-19, making it hard to say yet how 'typical' revenues for it in any year might level out. Still, it's a successful venture by any business measure.

There's a reason people are speculating about PAC cooperation with the ACC. A functioning, profitable network structure already exists out east. Cooperation could expand this network's content and reach while offering more effective media exposure to schools on the West Coast who can really use it right about now.

https://www.scacchoops.com/how-much-is-t...th-to-espn

(08-07-2022 09:26 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 09:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  14 with SDSU, Boise, Col St and SMU. Give them all half shares for the first contract.

They have to be worth something collectively on the basis of inventory alone.

IMO that would be a fatal lineup for the PAC, it would denigrate the brand.

How so? Colorado state would be the only one not pulling their weight on the field but at least brings an instate rival game to in conference.

SMU adds new state/big market and alumni with deep pockets. Also 2nd biggest student population for SMU is actually from California. Something like 18% of student body.

Boise adds new state and good football.
SDSU good football and helps hold onto south California market

While I will admit a bias & hope they do add those 4 teams. I think the only ones saying PAC should stay at 10 are those with extreme P5 bias or those that want the conference to ultimately be eliminated.

Adding those 4 teams ensures it doesn’t fold down the road, yes it may be a diminished product, but that happens the second the LA teams leave.

Big 12 is already a diminished product, but they have taken steps to ensure their future.

In time the ACC will be a diminished product too & will face the same decision as the B12 & PAC. They are somewhat at a disadvantage of going last if they are in fact waiting on the inevitable leaving of their top brands before they take action.

There is not 3rd super conference on the horizon as no cherry-picking the remaining conferences get you anywhere near the SEC/B1G. So we probably get an expanded middle class in CFB with the top G5’s moving up. One could argue outside of Clemson & Oklahoma the schools in the ACC/B12/ PAC have been middle class for some time.
Another could argue if you put the top G5’s on equal footing they will raise up in value to those they are joining rather quickly. Although to be fair that is a combination of them gaining value & their new conference mates losing value due to losing games with the top brands that left.

(08-07-2022 09:26 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 09:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  14 with SDSU, Boise, Col St and SMU. Give them all half shares for the first contract.

They have to be worth something collectively on the basis of inventory alone.

IMO that would be a fatal lineup for the PAC, it would denigrate the brand.

How so? Colorado state would be the only one not pulling their weight on the field but at least brings an instate rival game to in conference.

SMU adds new state/big market and alumni with deep pockets. Also 2nd biggest student population for SMU is actually from California. Something like 18% of student body.

Boise adds new state and good football.
SDSU good football and helps hold onto south California market

I continue to believe the Pac-12 is more likely to stand pat than add any new members. But if it does choose to pull the trigger on expansion I agree with the consensus that SDSU is the most likely first choice.

As for who might be next... well, if I'm not mistaken it takes unanimous consent by the current members to invite any school to the Pac-12. If that's correct then I'm pretty sure Colorado State will be blocked by Colorado. The Buffs have no desire to see the Rams elevated to equal status athletically. Moreover the school they view as their natural in-conference rival is Utah.

I also have a hard time imagining Pac-12 members reaching universal agreement to invite what is, at best, the seventh best college football brand in Texas. Moreover while adding SMU would give the conference a presence in DFW, that's not the same as delivering any substantial portion of the market.

As many have pointed out, Boise State is a non-starter from an academic perspective. That's probably also true of Fresno State.

That brings us to UNLV, which after SDSU is the addition I think has the best chance of obtaining approval from all of the remaining Pac-12 members. The school passes the eye-test academically, is in a large growing urban market, fills in a geographic gap, and has the most-recognized college brand in its state. Athletically the Rebels bring almost nothing but ironically that could be the least important consideration. If UNLV were invited I would view it the same way as the AAC's addition of Tulane in 2014 -- selecting the best available candidate from institutional fit, geographic and historical perspectives while ignoring the competitive consequences and potential criticism from national college sports pundits.

I'd like to think Hawaii has a shot -- in some ways we're more attractive than UNLV -- but realistically our geography and stadium situation are probably detriments too big to overcome.

(08-07-2022 09:26 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 09:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  14 with SDSU, Boise, Col St and SMU. Give them all half shares for the first contract.

They have to be worth something collectively on the basis of inventory alone.

IMO that would be a fatal lineup for the PAC, it would denigrate the brand.

How so? Colorado state would be the only one not pulling their weight on the field but at least brings an instate rival game to in conference.

SMU adds new state/big market and alumni with deep pockets. Also 2nd biggest student population for SMU is actually from California. Something like 18% of student body.

Boise adds new state and good football.
SDSU good football and helps hold onto south California market

IMO, adding those schools would denigrate the PAC brand. I think the PAC is clearly more valuable on a per-school basis without those mouths to feed. They bring G5 value to the conference, which harms the conference value.

The PAC shouldn't add them until it absolutely has to, which IMO means not unless more schools leave for the B1G or nB12.

There's also the prestige angle. Really, adding those schools now could trigger existing ones to join the nB12 or beg the B1G for membership by agreeing to cut-rate payouts. I think Oregon/Cal/Washington/Stanford types are more likely to flee if those schools join.

(08-07-2022 10:53 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  (snip)

Not so. The ACC Network makes good money for conference members (and ESPN). The ACC has the most profitable college athletics network outside the B1G and SEC, which got earlier starts; ask the PAC or B12 if they'd like to be able to say that.

The ACC Network launched late, just in time for Covid-19, making it hard to say yet how 'typical' revenues for it in any year might level out. Still, it's a successful venture by any business measure.

(snip)

This is true, the ACCN is successful. ACC schools will likely soon be making $10m to $15m more per year than they would have without the ACCN.

And when the dust settles in 2025, ACCN revenue will also very likely make the ACC the overall #3 in revenue, ahead of the nPAC and nB12.

ACCN gets denigrated because it is not the money-machine the SECN and BTN are, but it makes good money for the conference.

Now, whether it was worth a 20 year GOR is another matter, with some schools likely thinking "yes" while others now think "no". I suspect FSU thinks "no".

(08-08-2022 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 10:53 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  (snip)

Not so. The ACC Network makes good money for conference members (and ESPN). The ACC has the most profitable college athletics network outside the B1G and SEC, which got earlier starts; ask the PAC or B12 if they'd like to be able to say that.

The ACC Network launched late, just in time for Covid-19, making it hard to say yet how 'typical' revenues for it in any year might level out. Still, it's a successful venture by any business measure.

(snip)

This is true, the ACCN is successful. ACC schools will likely soon be making $10m to $15m more per year than they would have without the ACCN.

And when the dust settles in 2025, ACCN revenue will also very likely make the ACC the overall #3 in revenue, ahead of the nPAC and nB12.

ACCN gets denigrated because it is not the money-machine the SECN and BTN are, but it makes good money for the conference.

Now, whether it was worth a 20 year GOR is another matter, with some schools likely thinking "yes" while others now think "no". I suspect FSU thinks "no".

The Big 10 and SEC aren't making $15 million a year from their network. Maybe both not even $10 million. And its declining with the decline in cable subscriptions.
ACC probably tops out at a little over $5 million.

(08-08-2022 10:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-08-2022 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 10:53 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  (snip)

Not so. The ACC Network makes good money for conference members (and ESPN). The ACC has the most profitable college athletics network outside the B1G and SEC, which got earlier starts; ask the PAC or B12 if they'd like to be able to say that.

The ACC Network launched late, just in time for Covid-19, making it hard to say yet how 'typical' revenues for it in any year might level out. Still, it's a successful venture by any business measure.

(snip)

This is true, the ACCN is successful. ACC schools will likely soon be making $10m to $15m more per year than they would have without the ACCN.

And when the dust settles in 2025, ACCN revenue will also very likely make the ACC the overall #3 in revenue, ahead of the nPAC and nB12.

ACCN gets denigrated because it is not the money-machine the SECN and BTN are, but it makes good money for the conference.

Now, whether it was worth a 20 year GOR is another matter, with some schools likely thinking "yes" while others now think "no". I suspect FSU thinks "no".

The Big 10 and SEC aren't making $15 million a year from their network. Maybe both not even $10 million. And its declining with the decline in cable subscriptions.
ACC probably tops out at a little over $5 million.

OK, fair enough. But that is still good money for them.

(08-07-2022 11:30 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 09:26 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 09:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  14 with SDSU, Boise, Col St and SMU. Give them all half shares for the first contract.

They have to be worth something collectively on the basis of inventory alone.

IMO that would be a fatal lineup for the PAC, it would denigrate the brand.

How so? Colorado state would be the only one not pulling their weight on the field but at least brings an instate rival game to in conference.

SMU adds new state/big market and alumni with deep pockets. Also 2nd biggest student population for SMU is actually from California. Something like 18% of student body.

Boise adds new state and good football.
SDSU good football and helps hold onto south California market

I continue to believe the Pac-12 is more likely to stand pat than add any new members. But if it does choose to pull the trigger on expansion I agree with the consensus that SDSU is the most likely first choice.

As for who might be next... well, if I'm not mistaken it takes unanimous consent by the current members to invite any school to the Pac-12. If that's correct then I'm pretty sure Colorado State will be blocked by Colorado. The Buffs have no desire to see the Rams elevated to equal status athletically. Moreover the school they view as their natural in-conference rival is Utah.

I also have a hard time imagining Pac-12 members reaching universal agreement to invite what is, at best, the seventh best college football brand in Texas. Moreover while adding SMU would give the conference a presence in DFW, that's not the same as delivering any substantial portion of the market.

As many have pointed out, Boise State is a non-starter from an academic perspective. That's probably also true of Fresno State.

That brings us to UNLV, which after SDSU is the addition I think has the best chance of obtaining approval from all of the remaining Pac-12 members. The school passes the eye-test academically, is in a large growing urban market, fills in a geographic gap, and has the most-recognized college brand in its state. Athletically the Rebels bring almost nothing but ironically that could be the least important consideration. If UNLV were invited I would view it the same way as the AAC's addition of Tulane in 2014 -- selecting the best available candidate from institutional fit, geographic and historical perspectives while ignoring the competitive consequences and potential criticism from national college sports pundits.

I'd like to think Hawaii has a shot -- in some ways we're more attractive than UNLV -- but realistically our geography and stadium situation are probably detriments too big to overcome.

UNLV has much closer geography and a fantastic new stadium. But, SMU easily beats out UNLV in academics, market, football program and performance, and gets the PAC 12 into the Central time zone.

SMU is in a similar position to the PAC as TCU was to the MWC in 2005.

If the PAC invites UNLV over SMU, they will deserve the competitive consequences and every single national criticism.

(08-03-2022 04:31 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 02:56 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 02:00 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 11:28 AM)YNot Wrote:  Similar to when TCU was in the MWC.

Yes, a little more travel distance, but Dallas is probably the easiest city from an air travel standpoint. DFW is the perfect middle of the country hub airport and Love Field is approx. 5 miles from SMU's stadium.

SMU used to share a conference with Hawaii (with much less money). They'd make this work if offered.

Yes - for sure. I mean, SMU has just watched the best teams in the AAC leave (UCF, Cincinnati and Houston), has been sharing a market with a TCU program that regained its power status a decade ago, its in-state competitor of Baylor for both athletic recruits and regular students has seen a sports renaissance over the past several years, and is now in a league with UNT and UTSA. I think SMU would *pay* to be in the Pac-12, much less care about the travel time or costs.

The better play for the PAC is Houston than SMU. I'd go Houston first then SDSU. Keep it that way until the dust settles. The PAC 12 would have to make a money justification for Houston's travel, but their market is huge and the PAC's rights should bring more money than the Big 12 based upon viewership. The original 8 of the Big 12 are going to get paid, but I don't think they are sharing the UT/OU money which will over pay them one last time. Houston isn't one of them.

I don't see Houston leaving for the PAC, but , you do make a strong argument for Houston's neighbor, Rice, IMO.

(08-09-2022 01:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 04:31 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 02:56 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 02:00 PM)Big Foote Wrote:  Yes, a little more travel distance, but Dallas is probably the easiest city from an air travel standpoint. DFW is the perfect middle of the country hub airport and Love Field is approx. 5 miles from SMU's stadium.

SMU used to share a conference with Hawaii (with much less money). They'd make this work if offered.

Yes - for sure. I mean, SMU has just watched the best teams in the AAC leave (UCF, Cincinnati and Houston), has been sharing a market with a TCU program that regained its power status a decade ago, its in-state competitor of Baylor for both athletic recruits and regular students has seen a sports renaissance over the past several years, and is now in a league with UNT and UTSA. I think SMU would *pay* to be in the Pac-12, much less care about the travel time or costs.

The better play for the PAC is Houston than SMU. I'd go Houston first then SDSU. Keep it that way until the dust settles. The PAC 12 would have to make a money justification for Houston's travel, but their market is huge and the PAC's rights should bring more money than the Big 12 based upon viewership. The original 8 of the Big 12 are going to get paid, but I don't think they are sharing the UT/OU money which will over pay them one last time. Houston isn't one of them.

I don't see Houston leaving for the PAC, but , you do make a strong argument for Houston's neighbor, Rice, IMO.

I also do not see Houston leaving the PAC 12, but great move for the PAC would be the addition of 4 teams - Houston, SMU, San Diego and Air Force (football)/Gonzaga ( all other sports). The key would be Houston since you would then have both big Texas cities (#5 & #8). Dallas is projected to move from #5 to #3 during the next decade. San Diego solves the location issue and there is something special about having an academy.

If they can get Houston they should be able to get anyone else from the Big 12. Houston is off the table.

How many votes does it take to dissolve the Big 12? If WVU UC UCF were guaranteed spots in the ACC could six Big 12 teams moving west dissolve it (9/12)? Just pondering...

(08-09-2022 12:20 AM)Alanda Wrote:  

completely agree that this is not just about revenue per team; in the short run survival of the PAC12 is at stake. That is why I suggest adding 4 teams to stabilize the conference - similiar to what Big 12 did last year.

(08-08-2022 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ACCN gets denigrated because it is not the money-machine the SECN and BTN are, but it makes good money for the conference.

Sure. Any time you are legally raking in millions more for doing the same work, it's a sound business idea. The ACCN may not close the gap with the Super 2, but let's have some respect while spending those Franklins.

It's a resource that can be built on. Other conferences crave something like it and its existence could soon drive more ACC expansion.

Quote:Now, whether it was worth a 20 year GOR is another matter, with some schools likely thinking "yes" while others now think "no". I suspect FSU thinks "no".

I can confirm.

Did you know, though—ESPN, in return for building the network, first asked for a grant of rights that lasted until 2039? The ACC talked them down.