(09-20-2022 10:44 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(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.

Rice and UTSA are both still in CUSA right now, even though they are joining the AAC next year. Referring to them as CUSA schools isn't inaccurate. They're almost certainly the two being considered from CUSA to go along with SMU, several MWC options, and perhaps the likes of Tulane.

(09-19-2022 09:41 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  This seems a bit far fetched, but my hunch is he's referring to Rice (if they can't lure Houston away from the Big 12) and maybe UTSA.

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-sp...ingling-on

UTSA is in a good spot and they’re growing in popularity, but I think they’d be a huge stretch for the pac. Rice is not in a good spot, is not growing in popularity, and they’d be just as big of a stretch. Houston has no incentive to join what is, at best, a peer conference to the big 12. If the Pac just want to target geographic locations then pick any school in or near LA, say sdsu, Fresno st, and UNLV.

(09-20-2022 09:08 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(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.

LOL, sad ... and it seems so doggone unnecessary

Rice's academic peers are Stanford, Northwestern, Duke and Vanderbilt. No reason it can't compete/"compete" at the same level if the administration makes a true commitment.

Rice should be doing everything under its power — even it means taking pennies on the dollar media right shares for an extended period of time — to secure a spot in Conference Yormark.

The idea that Houston makes Rice superfluous in an expanded Big XII or its offshoot is absurd. More people live in Greater Houston than 36 of the 50 states.

If Yormark can't sell the benefit of having one elite institution to a collection of ivory tower university presidents, than he's probably not what the Big XII/Conference #3 needs.

Ok, @loki ... tell me where I'm wrong here :)

(09-20-2022 10:44 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(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.

But SBC raided the bottom of CUSA

(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.

Rice and SMU combined are worth less than UH or any current Texas big 12 member. As the Pac is desperate to make money rather than lose it, it would be beyond foolish for the them to even consider those schools.

(09-20-2022 11:46 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:44 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(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.

But SBC raided the bottom of CUSA

AAC and MWC schools would jump to the PAC 12 because it is a bigger payout.

Second, Boise State is in a bigger market than some of the PAC 12 schools. They don't have any competition from a pro team nor another D1 school. They would fit better in PAC 12.

(09-20-2022 11:32 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 10:44 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(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.

Rice and UTSA are both still in CUSA right now, even though they are joining the AAC next year. Referring to them as CUSA schools isn't inaccurate. They're almost certainly the two being considered from CUSA to go along with SMU, several MWC options, and perhaps the likes of Tulane.

UTSA football started in what, 2013 or something? If the PAC is seriously considering them, they must have struck out on all AAC or MWC options. (And there’s only one logical explanation for why the PAC would have struck out on AAC and MWC options.)


Even if you think that Rice would be a viable PAC target (mostly because of their former SWC membership) and you think the article would call them a Conference USA team, that still wouldn’t explain why the author puts “targets” in the plural form.

(09-20-2022 07:16 AM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 07:11 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 07:04 AM)Huan Wrote:  Rice fits academically and geographically.
So is Tulane.

How do schools in Houston and New Orleans fit geographically in the PAC-12?

I think it's "fits academically and geographically" if you're pulling in SMU. Rice+SMU makes a kind of sense, Rice by themselves less so

I concur. Rice and Tulane would be a good pair.

(09-20-2022 02:23 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(09-19-2022 09:41 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  This seems a bit far fetched, but my hunch is he's referring to Rice (if they can't lure Houston away from the Big 12) and maybe UTSA.

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-sp...ingling-on

Your title says "programs" (plural), suggesting that the PAC may be interested in more than one CUSA school.

If so, which other CUSA schools would the PAC be interested in?

UTSA, perhaps? UNT? UTEP?

Nobody ever talks about UNT, but they’re the only FBS public in DFW (TCU and SMU are private). UNT also has over 40k students and 58 years worth of playing football. Denton County has almost a million people, it’s #6 in Texas by population.

In spite of all this going for them, in football crazy Texas, they don’t even pull enough fans to fill up a big high school stadium. UTSA has a better shot than UNT.

(09-20-2022 11:52 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  AAC and MWC schools would jump to the PAC 12 because it is a bigger payout.

Second, Boise State is in a bigger market than some of the PAC 12 schools. They don't have any competition from a pro team nor another D1 school. They would fit better in PAC 12.

Boise State would be better off in the Big 12.

(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.

If they are actually going for Rice in addition to SMU & SDSU and are looking for a 4th, I think Tulane would be considered...

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pa...ner-breaks
This is hilarious. And it reads like a propaganda piece as well. No lie is to big to tell.

"...In the talk, Kliavkoff spoke candidly about his relationships with other commissioners. He believes UCLA will lose money — not make it — by going to the Big Ten....

Kliavkoff sounded confident the Pac-12 won’t lose any of the 10 remaining conference members to the Big Ten or Big 12. I mean, he sounded rock-solid certain. It dovetails with what conference athletic directors have said to me over the last couple of months, but I was still a little surprised at the level of unwavering confidence he expressed...."

I would take the Highlander and MHVer3 more seriously than Canzano.

So this thread turns into talk about how these Conference USA schools would seriously have value to the PAC. (Rather than talk about how the PAC must be doomed if Conference USA teams are seriously being given the time of day by the PAC.)


Ah, the spirit of CSNBBS. Pretending that these Group of 5 schools have value.

(09-20-2022 11:38 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 09:08 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(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.

LOL, sad ... and it seems so doggone unnecessary

Rice's academic peers are Stanford, Northwestern, Duke and Vanderbilt. No reason it can't compete/"compete" at the same level if the administration makes a true commitment.

Rice should be doing everything under its power — even it means taking pennies on the dollar media right shares for an extended period of time — to secure a spot in Conference Yormark.

The idea that Houston makes Rice superfluous in an expanded Big XII or its offshoot is absurd. More people live in Greater Houston than 36 of the 50 states.

If Yormark can't sell the benefit of having one elite institution to a collection of ivory tower university presidents, than he's probably not what the Big XII/Conference #3 needs.

Ok, @loki ... tell me where I'm wrong here :)

You ain't wrong. And it's been discussed to death on the Rice board. But this university, in many ways, has always seemed very conservative to me. That is, fiscally, campus build-out, student growth, etc. All those things that let the P5 privates maintain their status were not done at Rice.

UTSA has very low AI and very low graduation rates. It is a commuter and that looks very similar to Charlotte and San Jose State. Faculty rate better which puts in more in a category with UNLV, New Mexico and UTEP. But none of those are Pac-12 level, they are MWC or AAC level.

Looking back the Pac-12 had a shot at Houston and passed, and refused to look at BYU. Mistakes. It's a significant drop to even SMU and a compromise of standards to look at San Diego State. Rice at least wins the Presidents (not likely the ADs), UTSA won't even get a sniff.

As a Pac-12 guy, I don't like any of them. And frankly it'd be preferable for the B1G to finish off the Pac-12 take Oregon and Washington, with the rest joining the Big 12. What is going on is an exercise in futility. From the individual schools standpoint it's probably better not to expand, but to get the most you can out of this contract cycle and wait for the next one to see if you can land a better situation for your school. Betting on lesser regional schools in a region already thin on talent strikes me as a path to G5 status.

(09-20-2022 11:52 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  AAC and MWC schools would jump to the PAC 12 because it is a bigger payout.

Second, Boise State is in a bigger market than some of the PAC 12 schools. They don't have any competition from a pro team nor another D1 school. They would fit better in PAC 12.

A PAC that’s decimated all the way to just Oregon State and Washington State would hardly command more money than the MWC. Those are the two lowest value PAC teams, and if you think that having Oregon State and Washington State would somehow give credibility to the PAC, keep in mind that the AAC will actually include four former major conference teams. (SMU, Rice, Tulane and Temple.)


I’ve previously questioned if a two member PAC would actually be capable of raiding the MWC or AAC. It seems like my suspicions that MWC schools won’t leave for a 2 member PAC were correct, so Oregon State and WSU are scraping the total bottom of the FBS barrel for new PAC members.

10 million per year is probably all you can do though for new members (perhaps even less at 14 total schools) if the average payout is 30 million a year.

(09-20-2022 12:07 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  You ain't wrong. And it's been discussed to death on the Rice board. But this university, in many ways, has always seemed very conservative to me. That is, fiscally, campus build-out, student growth, etc. All those things that let the P5 privates maintain their status were not done at Rice.

So is there any sign the administration might make a necessary pivot to find a spot in that upper-tier/near upper-tier of Division I-A football?

Rice belonging to a league filled with branch campuses and directional schools is borderline absurd and has very little upside.

Again, if Duke, Northwestern, Stanford and Vandy can figure out how to make it work in Power 5 Foootball (and those are Rice's peer institutions, not Baylor, SMU, TCU or even Tulane), there's no reason Rice can't do the same

(09-20-2022 12:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pa...ner-breaks
This is hilarious. And it reads like a propaganda piece as well. No lie is to big to tell.

"...In the talk, Kliavkoff spoke candidly about his relationships with other commissioners. He believes UCLA will lose money — not make it — by going to the Big Ten....

Kliavkoff sounded confident the Pac-12 won’t lose any of the 10 remaining conference members to the Big Ten or Big 12. I mean, he sounded rock-solid certain. It dovetails with what conference athletic directors have said to me over the last couple of months, but I was still a little surprised at the level of unwavering confidence he expressed...."

I would take the Highlander and MHVer3 more seriously than Canzano.

And folks go off on Yormark as a propagandist. He has not said anything near this.