I would be shocked

Everyone likes to talk about the schools with "potential", but one that's rarely talked about but probably has the highest actual potential is Rice. They have academics that make them a legitimate peer with Stanford, they are located in the 4th largest city in the country, and they have essentially unlimited money and alumni with massive pockets. Only thing holding Rice back is Rice.

(09-20-2022 07:53 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Everyone likes to talk about the schools with "potential", but one that's rarely talked about but probably has the highest actual potential is Rice. They have academics that make them a legitimate peer with Stanford, they are located in the 4th largest city in the country, and they have essentially unlimited money and alumni with massive pockets. Only thing holding Rice back is Rice.

Rice is damn good at holding back Rice.

Rice is also very small. They only have about 8,000 total students and 4,000 undergrads. Until about 20 years ago, it was 4,000 with 2,000 undergrads. They don't have a big alumni base.

Stanford, by contrast, in more than twice that size and has been roughly the same size for a while.

Guys, clearly they'd be looking for a school with plenty of experience playing out west.

The choice is clear.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/con.../2008.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/con.../1995.html

(09-19-2022 10:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Rice is the only current C-USA school that has even a sniff of a chance at the Pac-12 as a pure academic/market play. They make some sense if they’re paired with SMU.

I have said this a few times before. They are located in the #4 and #5 MSA in the United States and offer academics that schools like Stanford, Cal, and Washington can be pleased with. Also a pair of Texas teams with no divisions could see everyone with an away game in Texas almost every year.

Conference USA is at the bottom of the conference hierarchy. It's the equivalent of what the Sun Belt was in the oughts. And Conference USA isn't remotely in the PAC's geographic footprint, to boot.

If the PAC is seriously considering Conference USA schools, that must mean they know that their membership is about to be reduced to just Oregon State and Washington State. That would further imply that even MWC schools are unwilling to join a PAC that's reduced all the way to two members, and Oregon State and Washington State are really determined to keep the PAC name alive rather than just joining the MWC themselves.

(09-20-2022 09:52 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 10:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Rice is the only current C-USA school that has even a sniff of a chance at the Pac-12 as a pure academic/market play. They make some sense if they’re paired with SMU.

I have said this a few times before. They are located in the #4 and #5 MSA in the United States and offer academics that schools like Stanford, Cal, and Washington can be pleased with. Also a pair of Texas teams with no divisions could see everyone with an away game in Texas almost every year.

Rice, SMU and San Diego State make sense if the PAC is going to 14 and can't entice a Big 12 school. The 14th would be interesting. Maybe between Boise St (it is an athletic conference, right?), UNLV, Fresno St?

If the PAC stays together for the time being and adds 2 or 4, will the Big 12 make a move with a couple of teams from the same list? If the PAC adds San Diego St and SMU would the Big 12 add Boise St and someone?

(09-19-2022 10:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Rice is the only current C-USA school that has even a sniff of a chance at the Pac-12 as a pure academic/market play. They make some sense if they’re paired with SMU.

San Diego State is the obvious expansion option and I feel as if though SMU is likely #2. SMU is really the only school outside of the P5 that has meets the Pac-12 combo of academics, market location, and at least some historical athletic brand value. After that, it’s a crapshoot. UNLV has the market location but not the academics or on-the-field brand, Boise State has the on-the-field brand but not any market or academics, Rice has academics and market but not the on-the-field brand, Fresno State has a good fan base but not the market or academics, etc.

First of all, this article uses Conference USA teams in the plural, implying that more than one Conference USA school is being considered. Second of all, Rice is leaving for the AAC effective July 1, 2023, so I'm not really sure if Rice would be described as a Conference USA school.


Assuming this whole article isn't a crock of **** (which is a pretty strong possibility given that the author is Canzano), it's an indicator that the PAC is about to be destroyed.

I agree with Frank's list. San Diego State is seen as a market need overriding it's below Pac-12 academic standards (faculty is well short of Pac-12, but admission standards and graduation rates are good), SMU has a program with near P5 level of financial support, the academics and market location, but no fan base.

It is problematic after that, but if I had to guess I'd say Fresno State and Rice would be the next up. Boise State is a fading program that has no prospects to reach the financial support levels, which combined with horrid AI make them a non starter. Rice could meet those levels if the administration made it a point of emphasis. UNLV has poor support for football and atrocious academic standards, although a prime market.Some posters love to throw out UTSA, but financial support levels are too low, academics are atrocious --it's a commuter campus that most closely resembles Charlotte and San Jose State-- making it a non starter. Colorado State hits every mark except they double down on a weak market and their fan support is too low (brand is too meh). Air Force is similar but with the added restriction on recruiting that makes them incapable of competing at P5 level (high G5 is where the academies compete in football, lower in basketball).

So if the Pac-12 really is looking at four, then probably two California and two Texas for markets: San Diego State, Fresno State, SMU, Rice. If Academics are king then swap Colorado State for Fresno State (I don't think so).

But my take is they are exploring. G5 schools are notorious for leaks. We knew the schools the Big 12, American and Sun Belt were looking at and then added long before they pulled the trigger. Nothing like that now. So I think it's far from happening.

(09-20-2022 10:19 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:52 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 10:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Rice is the only current C-USA school that has even a sniff of a chance at the Pac-12 as a pure academic/market play. They make some sense if they’re paired with SMU.

I have said this a few times before. They are located in the #4 and #5 MSA in the United States and offer academics that schools like Stanford, Cal, and Washington can be pleased with. Also a pair of Texas teams with no divisions could see everyone with an away game in Texas almost every year.

Rice, SMU and San Diego State make sense if the PAC is going to 14 and can't entice a Big 12 school. The 14th would be interesting. Maybe between Boise St (it is an athletic conference, right?), UNLV, Fresno St?

If the PAC stays together for the time being and adds 2 or 4, will the Big 12 make a move with a couple of teams from the same list? If the PAC adds San Diego St and SMU would the Big 12 add Boise St and someone?

I'm stunned that people don't realize what this article is saying. It's basically saying that the PAC isn't even capable of raiding the AAC or MWC.


That would mean that the PAC is about to have their membership reduced all the way to 2, and everybody in the know (not just PAC Athletic directors but MWC and AAC athletic directors as well) must know it.

I would think the only schools interested in this are WSU and OSU.

(09-20-2022 10:31 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:19 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:52 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 10:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Rice is the only current C-USA school that has even a sniff of a chance at the Pac-12 as a pure academic/market play. They make some sense if they’re paired with SMU.

I have said this a few times before. They are located in the #4 and #5 MSA in the United States and offer academics that schools like Stanford, Cal, and Washington can be pleased with. Also a pair of Texas teams with no divisions could see everyone with an away game in Texas almost every year.

Rice, SMU and San Diego State make sense if the PAC is going to 14 and can't entice a Big 12 school. The 14th would be interesting. Maybe between Boise St (it is an athletic conference, right?), UNLV, Fresno St?

If the PAC stays together for the time being and adds 2 or 4, will the Big 12 make a move with a couple of teams from the same list? If the PAC adds San Diego St and SMU would the Big 12 add Boise St and someone?

I'm stunned that people don't realize what this article is saying. It's basically saying that the PAC isn't even capable of raiding the AAC or MWC.


That would mean that the PAC is about to have their membership reduced all the way to 2, and everybody in the know (not just PAC Athletic directors but MWC and AAC athletic directors as well) must know it.

That's 100% not what it's saying.

(09-20-2022 10:36 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I would think the only schools interested in this are WSU and OSU.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The PAC membership must be about to be reduced to Oregon State and Washington State, and apparently a 2 member PAC isn't capable of raiding a 12 member MWC or 14 member AAC. But Washington State and Oregon State still apparently have some huge desire to keep the PAC name alive, so rather than joining the MWC themselves they're actually going to create a PAC that's even worse than the MWC.

You don't look at Conference USA schools as expansion candidates unless you're unable to lure MWC and AAC schools. Conference USA is at the bottom of FBS- it just got raided by the Sun Belt, for God's sake. I'm stunned that people on this thread don't realize that.

(09-20-2022 10:38 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:31 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:19 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:52 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 10:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Rice is the only current C-USA school that has even a sniff of a chance at the Pac-12 as a pure academic/market play. They make some sense if they’re paired with SMU.

I have said this a few times before. They are located in the #4 and #5 MSA in the United States and offer academics that schools like Stanford, Cal, and Washington can be pleased with. Also a pair of Texas teams with no divisions could see everyone with an away game in Texas almost every year.

Rice, SMU and San Diego State make sense if the PAC is going to 14 and can't entice a Big 12 school. The 14th would be interesting. Maybe between Boise St (it is an athletic conference, right?), UNLV, Fresno St?

If the PAC stays together for the time being and adds 2 or 4, will the Big 12 make a move with a couple of teams from the same list? If the PAC adds San Diego St and SMU would the Big 12 add Boise St and someone?

I'm stunned that people don't realize what this article is saying. It's basically saying that the PAC isn't even capable of raiding the AAC or MWC.


That would mean that the PAC is about to have their membership reduced all the way to 2, and everybody in the know (not just PAC Athletic directors but MWC and AAC athletic directors as well) must know it.

That's 100% not what it's saying.

Canzano is probably talking to the Oregon State AD. Alternately he might be talking to the PAC commissioner or Washington State AD, who are basically the only three people who care in the least about keeping the PAC alive.


Yeah, of course the Oregon State AD isn't going to tell Canzano that the PAC is about to be reduced to just Oregon State and Washington State. But it's pretty easy to read in between the lines.

(09-20-2022 10:26 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I agree with Frank's list. San Diego State is seen as a market need overriding it's below Pac-12 academic standards (faculty is well short of Pac-12, but admission standards and graduation rates are good), SMU has a program with near P5 level of financial support, the academics and market location, but no fan base.

It is problematic after that, but if I had to guess I'd say Fresno State and Rice would be the next up. Boise State is a fading program that has no prospects to reach the financial support levels, which combined with horrid AI make them a non starter. Rice could meet those levels if the administration made it a point of emphasis. UNLV has poor support for football and atrocious academic standards, although a prime market.Some posters love to throw out UTSA, but financial support levels are too low, academics are atrocious --it's a commuter campus that most closely resembles Charlotte and San Jose State-- making it a non starter. Colorado State hits every mark except they double down on a weak market and their fan support is too low (brand is too meh). Air Force is similar but with the added restriction on recruiting that makes them incapable of competing at P5 level (high G5 is where the academies compete in football, lower in basketball).

So if the Pac-12 really is looking at four, then probably two California and two Texas for markets: San Diego State, Fresno State, SMU, Rice. If Academics are king then swap Colorado State for Fresno State (I don't think so).

But my take is they are exploring. G5 schools are notorious for leaks. We knew the schools the Big 12, American and Sun Belt were looking at and then added long before they pulled the trigger. Nothing like that now. So I think it's far from happening.

UTSA is Carnegie I in research. They recently met the standards for the National Research University Fund in Texas, joining Houston, Texas Tech, UT Dallas and UT Arlington as meeting the standards for additional state funding. So from that standpoint, it puts them ahead of San Jose.

(09-20-2022 10:38 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:31 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:19 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:52 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 10:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Rice is the only current C-USA school that has even a sniff of a chance at the Pac-12 as a pure academic/market play. They make some sense if they’re paired with SMU.

I have said this a few times before. They are located in the #4 and #5 MSA in the United States and offer academics that schools like Stanford, Cal, and Washington can be pleased with. Also a pair of Texas teams with no divisions could see everyone with an away game in Texas almost every year.

Rice, SMU and San Diego State make sense if the PAC is going to 14 and can't entice a Big 12 school. The 14th would be interesting. Maybe between Boise St (it is an athletic conference, right?), UNLV, Fresno St?

If the PAC stays together for the time being and adds 2 or 4, will the Big 12 make a move with a couple of teams from the same list? If the PAC adds San Diego St and SMU would the Big 12 add Boise St and someone?

I'm stunned that people don't realize what this article is saying. It's basically saying that the PAC isn't even capable of raiding the AAC or MWC.


That would mean that the PAC is about to have their membership reduced all the way to 2, and everybody in the know (not just PAC Athletic directors but MWC and AAC athletic directors as well) must know it.

That's 100% not what it's saying.

Really curious as to how anyone can come to the conclusion he did when the part being quoted is, in full:

Quote:Further, the Pac-12 expansion question is looming. I’ve written about San Diego State, SMU, UNLV, Boise State and Fresno State at length. A few have speculated that the conference might be more aggressive, moving to add a soon-to-be Big 12 member or potentially targeting some Conference USA programs.

"A few have speculated..." - doesn't even need to be a Pac-12 insider. Could literally refer to people in the media or twitter-verse just tossing darts around. Additionally, it's most likely the case that he tossed at last sentence down in order to keep it fresh and not just include the same programs everyone has been talking about over and over again.

"...the conference might be more aggressive, moving to add a soon-to-be Big 12 member..."


Strange how that part is being easily ignored so people can jump to the conclusion of "CUSA being the only option!"

(09-20-2022 11:06 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:38 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:31 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:19 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:52 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  I have said this a few times before. They are located in the #4 and #5 MSA in the United States and offer academics that schools like Stanford, Cal, and Washington can be pleased with. Also a pair of Texas teams with no divisions could see everyone with an away game in Texas almost every year.

Rice, SMU and San Diego State make sense if the PAC is going to 14 and can't entice a Big 12 school. The 14th would be interesting. Maybe between Boise St (it is an athletic conference, right?), UNLV, Fresno St?

If the PAC stays together for the time being and adds 2 or 4, will the Big 12 make a move with a couple of teams from the same list? If the PAC adds San Diego St and SMU would the Big 12 add Boise St and someone?

I'm stunned that people don't realize what this article is saying. It's basically saying that the PAC isn't even capable of raiding the AAC or MWC.


That would mean that the PAC is about to have their membership reduced all the way to 2, and everybody in the know (not just PAC Athletic directors but MWC and AAC athletic directors as well) must know it.

That's 100% not what it's saying.

Really curious as to how anyone can come to the conclusion he did when the part being quoted is, in full:

Quote:Further, the Pac-12 expansion question is looming. I’ve written about San Diego State, SMU, UNLV, Boise State and Fresno State at length. A few have speculated that the conference might be more aggressive, moving to add a soon-to-be Big 12 member or potentially targeting some Conference USA programs.

"A few have speculated..." - doesn't even need to be a Pac-12 insider. Could literally refer to people in the media or twitter-verse just tossing darts around. Additionally, it's most likely the case that he tossed at last sentence down in order to keep it fresh and not just include the same programs everyone has been talking about over and over again.

"...the conference might be more aggressive, moving to add a soon-to-be Big 12 member..."


Strange how that part is being easily ignored so people can jump to the conclusion of "CUSA being the only option!"

Canzano seems to be full of **** half the time, and that's a pretty strong possibility here. But if the PAC is seriously looking at Conference USA schools, that means the PAC must be doomed.

You don't move onto Conference USA targets for expansion unless you've struck out on literally every single MWC and AAC option. (And, given that the Sun Belt is now stronger than Conference USA, probably Sun Belt options as well.) If the PAC is now seriously looking at Conference USA teams, that must have meant that the MWC and AAC teams the PAC was looking at a month or two ago turned the PAC down.

And there's really only one logical explanation about why those schools would have turned down the PAC. They must know the PAC is about to get decimated.

Did he confuse C-USA with the American? I know, easy to do.

(09-19-2022 10:45 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Rice to the Pac-12 would scream desperation. The institutional fit is there, but athletically and in terms of brand value? I can’t see it.

What if Rice were to commit to spending like SMU? They certainly have the alumni and institutional money to make it happen if they so desire.