(01-30-2023 01:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:26 PM)Poster Wrote:  If the PAC really needed content so badly, then why didn’t they expand to 12 with some random low value MWC schools in the 1990s or oughts?


As it was, they basically ended up adding Colorado (a long time major conference team) just to block out Baylor, and then added Utah (one of the top MWC teams) just because they needed a partner for Colorado. It’s not clear the PAC would have added either Colorado or Utah if they had known tge PAC-16 would fall through.

The PAC was already considering the addition of CU and UU as 11/12 before the PAC16 was even a twinkle in Larry Scott’s eye because the revenue of the CCG made it a no-brainer (back when 12 were required to have a CCG). If the waiver for a CCG with 10 had existed in 2010, I’m not sure the PAC would have gone for CU/UU. The CCG revenue was clearly the impetus to consider expansion.

The talk about adding Colorado and Utah was probably just a ploy to destabilize the Big 12 and add Texas. Similar to how the Big 10’s flirtation with Missouri was seemingly just a ploy to destabilize the Big 12 and add Nebraska.

The difference is that since the PAC failed to hit their jackpot, they (basically accidentally) added the teams they were originally talking about adding.

SMU is academically categorically different from PAC12 schools.

Seriously, one has to not understand academia at all to make that statement.

These are SMU’s self-identified peer universities and the consortium it currently belongs to. Not a PAC school or a PAC-like school on the list.

Cohort Peer Universities

These universities are those defined as operationally comparative.

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
Waco, Texas

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
Bronx, New York

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
Malibu, California

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
Fort Worth, Texas

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
Denver, Colorado

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA
Tulsa, Oklahoma

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY
Villanova, Pennsylvania


G14

The G14 is a consortium of fourteen universities formed by the Provosts of the universities, and supported by the Institutional Research offices through data exchanges and information sharing.

BOSTON COLLEGE
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

BOSTON UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
Waltham, Massachusetts

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
New York, New York

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
Dallas, Texas

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TUFTS UNIVERSITY
Medford, Massachusetts

TULANE UNIVERSITY
New Orleans, Louisiana

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
South Bend, Indiana

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

(01-30-2023 01:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:26 PM)Poster Wrote:  If the PAC really needed content so badly, then why didn’t they expand to 12 with some random low value MWC schools in the 1990s or oughts?


As it was, they basically ended up adding Colorado (a long time major conference team) just to block out Baylor, and then added Utah (one of the top MWC teams) just because they needed a partner for Colorado. It’s not clear the PAC would have added either Colorado or Utah if they had known tge PAC-16 would fall through.

The PAC was already considering the addition of CU and UU as 11/12 before the PAC16 was even a twinkle in Larry Scott’s eye because the revenue of the CCG made it a no-brainer (back when 12 were required to have a CCG). If the waiver for a CCG with 10 had existed in 2010, I’m not sure the PAC would have gone for CU/UU. The CCG revenue was clearly the impetus to consider expansion.

The talk about adding Colorado and Utah was probably just a ploy to destabilize the Big 12 and add Texas. Similar to how the Big 10’s flirtation with Missouri was seemingly just been a ploy to destabilize the Big 12 and add Nebraska.

The difference is that since the PAC failed to hit their jackpot, they (basically accidentally) added the teams they were originally talking about adding.

It was not. Utah and CU were very far into talks before UT pitched the PAC16 to Scott.

(01-30-2023 12:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I suspect the Pac12 moving on as a 10 team league is more likely than any expansion at all.

Agreed. Maybe a 60/40 chance of standing pat. With the media deal not likely to generate a significant revenue increase, their inclination will be to avoid adding more mouths to feed so as to maximize the per-school distribution to the current members.

If they do expand I think it will be SDSU only, primarily as a defensive move to keep the Big 12 out of SoCal.

(01-30-2023 01:33 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People act like SMU is athletically a “value add”.

It is not.

It got passed up by the BigXII in favor of TCU and later Houston for a reason.

Adding SMU to “get into Dallas” with it’s 114k living alumni and 44k alumni in DFW and <25k attendance acts like SMU somehow has some relevant value-added cache. Unless you’re view of CFB was shaped prior to the death penalty, SMU hasn’t been a relevant program in your lifetime.

I don’t get it. SMU detracts more from whatever brand the PAC still has than it adds as an above generic commodity schools in Texas.

I think that's a very harsh view.

I guess it just depends on whether one believes that the Pac-12 needs to expand at all.

IMHO, it's an absolute 100% requirement for the Pac-12 to expand. This isn't (or at least shouldn't be) about squeezing out an additional $1 million or $2 million per year per school in TV money. Instead, this is about long-term survival of the conference as an ongoing entity. (I know that some others disagree and believe that if the Pac-12 makes any less TV money at all per school with expansion compared to staying at 10 schools, then they shouldn't expand. It's a valid point and I'd normally agree, but once again, I think the much bigger picture is more about conference survival. Contrary to common message board beliefs, schools actually don't *want* to dissolve a conference if they don't have to do so even if they're hoping to find a different home long-term.)

So, I don't think it's a choice for the Pac-12 to not expand and, practically speaking, having 11 teams (or any odd number of teams) causes more logistical problems than having 12 teams (or any even number of teams). They aren't insurmountable problems, but when push comes to shove, you'd rather avoid them if there's any legitimate alternative.

IMHO, SDSU is a must have for the Pac-12 based on location. Regardless of whether people think Pac-12 expansion is a good or bad idea, I think there's widespread agreement that if the Pac-12 is going to expand, SDSU is absolutely going to be included.

Therefore, the analysis is who comes with SDSU. I'm still challenged to find a better option than SMU on that front out of the G5 options. If the Pac-12 could get TCU instead, then they'd do that instead... but they can't realistically do that here.

As a result, when you're critiquing SMU so harshly, I'd like to understand who you believe is a better option than SMU. Even from a pure sports standpoint where academics and markets aren't taken into account, I think the only real argument there is Boise State.

Once you add SMU's market and academic standing on top of that, then I'm not seeing a better option. You've pointed to Rice and, as much as respect their academics, you can't seriously believe that Rice is better athletically than SMU.

The critique of SMU's standing in the Dallas market is honestly the weakest one of them all. (This isn't just you - it's a common knock on them from a lot of posters.) Guess what - if you're in the G5, then you're probably not delivering your TV market and/or your TV market isn't important enough to warrant any attention. It doesn't matter if SMU is lower on the totem pole in the Dallas market than UT, A&M and the Big 12 teams. EVERYONE in the G5 that's in a state or market with a P5 team is going to be lower on the totem pole. The Dallas market is still a monster one for TV *and* recruiting and SMU is a respectable academic institution that won't get the undies of Washington/Cal/Stanford in a bunch. (Every analysis about academic snobbery in the Pac-12 should include Washington and not just Cal and Stanford. This is quite important to understand the dynamics of the league.) IMHO, those factors alone make SMU better than any other viable option for the Pac-12 outside of SDSU.

If you don't think the Pac-12 should expand, I might disagree in principle, but I'd at least understand it.

However, I'm just failing to see a viable G5 school that would be paired with SDSU that combines (a) academic acceptability to the Pac-12, (b) a major market and (c ) at least *some* history of athletic pedigree. To me, SMU is the only one that really has all 3 of those factors besides SDSU. Rice has (a) and (b) but not (c ). Boise State and Fresno State have (c ) but not (a) and (b). UNLV has (b) but not (a) and maybe not (c ). We can go on and on, but I ask again, if the Pac-12 *has* expand and we assume SDSU is one of the schools, then who is actually better than SMU that's a *realistic* choice (AKA current G5 school) to pair with them (as opposed to just pointing out the negatives about SMU)?

(01-30-2023 01:58 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  SMU is academically categorically different from PAC12 schools.

Seriously, one has to not understand academia at all to make that statement.

Yes, I agree that SMU is different than the Pac-12 schools as an overall institution.

However, where I strongly disagree with you here is what seems to be your argument that in the context of *today's* Pac-12 options is that SMU is somehow academically unacceptable to the rest of the Pac-12 on being an undergrad-focused private institution. I truly don't believe that's the case (and it's not just me saying that, but people like Wilner who has been referring to SMU in virtually every expansion piece that he's written for several months).

(01-30-2023 02:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:33 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People act like SMU is athletically a “value add”.

It is not.

It got passed up by the BigXII in favor of TCU and later Houston for a reason.

Adding SMU to “get into Dallas” with it’s 114k living alumni and 44k alumni in DFW and <25k attendance acts like SMU somehow has some relevant value-added cache. Unless you’re view of CFB was shaped prior to the death penalty, SMU hasn’t been a relevant program in your lifetime.

I don’t get it. SMU detracts more from whatever brand the PAC still has than it adds as an above generic commodity schools in Texas.

I think that's a very harsh view.

I guess it just depends on whether one believes that the Pac-12 needs to expand at all.

IMHO, it's an absolute 100% requirement for the Pac-12 to expand. This isn't (or at least shouldn't be) about squeezing out an additional $1 million or $2 million per year per school in TV money. Instead, this is about long-term survival of the conference as an ongoing entity. (I know that some others disagree and believe that if the Pac-12 makes any less TV money at all per school with expansion compared to staying at 10 schools, then they shouldn't expand. It's a valid point and I'd normally agree, but once again, I think the much bigger picture is more about conference survival. Contrary to common message board beliefs, schools actually don't *want* to dissolve a conference if they don't have to do so even if they're hoping to find a different home long-term.)

So, I don't think it's a choice for the Pac-12 to not expand and, practically speaking, having 11 teams (or any odd number of teams) causes more logistical problems than having 12 teams (or any even number of teams). They aren't insurmountable problems, but when push comes to shove, you'd rather avoid them if there's any legitimate alternative.

IMHO, SDSU is a must have for the Pac-12 based on location. Regardless of whether people think Pac-12 expansion is a good or bad idea, I think there's widespread agreement that if the Pac-12 is going to expand, SDSU is absolutely going to be included.

Therefore, the analysis is who comes with SDSU. I'm still challenged to find a better option than SMU on that front out of the G5 options. If the Pac-12 could get TCU instead, then they'd do that instead... but they can't realistically do that here.

As a result, when you're critiquing SMU so harshly, I'd like to understand who you believe is a better option than SMU. Even from a pure sports standpoint where academics and markets aren't taken into account, I think the only real argument there is Boise State.

Once you add SMU's market and academic standing on top of that, then I'm not seeing a better option. You've pointed to Rice and, as much as respect their academics, you can't seriously believe that Rice is better athletically than SMU.

The critique of SMU's standing in the Dallas market is honestly the weakest one of them all. (This isn't just you - it's a common knock on them from a lot of posters.) Guess what - if you're in the G5, then you're probably not delivering your TV market and/or your TV market isn't important enough to warrant any attention. It doesn't matter if SMU is lower on the totem pole in the Dallas market than UT, A&M and the Big 12 teams. EVERYONE in the G5 that's in a state or market with a P5 team is going to be lower on the totem pole. The Dallas market is still a monster one for TV *and* recruiting and SMU is a respectable academic institution that won't get the undies of Washington/Cal/Stanford in a bunch. (Every analysis about academic snobbery in the Pac-12 should include Washington and not just Cal and Stanford. This is quite important to understand the dynamics of the league.) IMHO, those factors alone make SMU better than any other viable option for the Pac-12 outside of SDSU.

If you don't think the Pac-12 should expand, I might disagree in principle, but I'd at least understand it.

However, I'm just failing to see a viable G5 school that would be paired with SDSU that combines (a) academic acceptability to the Pac-12, (b) a major market and (c ) at least *some* history of athletic pedigree. To me, SMU is the only one that really has all 3 of those factors besides SDSU. Rice has (a) and (b) but not (c ). Boise State and Fresno State have (c ) but not (a) and (b). UNLV has (b) but not (a) and maybe not (c ). We can go on and on, but I ask again, if the Pac-12 *has* expand and we assume SDSU is one of the schools, then who is actually better than SMU that's a *realistic* choice (AKA current G5 school) to pair with them (as opposed to just pointing out the negatives about SMU)?

SMU is also the only Pac expansion candidate.with deep pockets. There is a lot of old Texas money waiting to be spent by their alumni base as soon as a P5 invitation happens.

I disagree with you on A and C.

A) SMU is a categorically different type of school than those of the PAC12. The institutional profile of SMU is still a major negative factor. Not because SMU is bad, but it would be more desirable to have an OK school with the correct institutional profile (like a CSU, or USU, or UNM) than an SMU.

C) SMU’s athletic pedigree is the school that got the death penalty. Nobody cares that it was included in UT’s fiefdom as part of the SWC. It got dropped by the WAC and passed up by the NewBXII. That doesn’t carry any cache. Or it still carries some stink. Take your pick.

(01-30-2023 01:33 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People act like SMU is athletically a “value add”.

It is not.

It got passed up by the BigXII in favor of TCU and later Houston for a reason.

Adding SMU to “get into Dallas” with it’s 114k living alumni and 44k alumni in DFW and <25k attendance acts like SMU somehow has some relevant value-added cache. Unless you’re view of CFB was shaped prior to the death penalty, SMU hasn’t been a relevant program in your lifetime.

I don’t get it. SMU detracts more from whatever brand the PAC still has than it adds as an above generic commodity schools in Texas.

It's not that SMU is a "value add", it's well below the average value of the PAC 10 schools. You're right about that.

But if the PAC feels that they HAVE to expand, then they have to expand with someone. And everybody out there is below the PAC-10's average value.

SMU brings you a foothold in DFW, a glorious past, and an alumni group with a tradition of spending money. Both in the past on the Pony Express and lately on facilities.

It's not about whether SMU adds value to the PAC. They don't.

It's about, if the PAC has to add SOMEBODY, does anyone add more than SMU? SMU is a halfway credible football program in DFW.

(If the PAC "has to add" SDSU for southern California footprint, then they have to add a #12. If you're adding for footprint, you might as well add DFW)

(01-30-2023 02:13 PM)Tmac13 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:33 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People act like SMU is athletically a “value add”.

It is not.

It got passed up by the BigXII in favor of TCU and later Houston for a reason.

Adding SMU to “get into Dallas” with it’s 114k living alumni and 44k alumni in DFW and <25k attendance acts like SMU somehow has some relevant value-added cache. Unless you’re view of CFB was shaped prior to the death penalty, SMU hasn’t been a relevant program in your lifetime.

I don’t get it. SMU detracts more from whatever brand the PAC still has than it adds as an above generic commodity schools in Texas.

I think that's a very harsh view.

I guess it just depends on whether one believes that the Pac-12 needs to expand at all.

IMHO, it's an absolute 100% requirement for the Pac-12 to expand. This isn't (or at least shouldn't be) about squeezing out an additional $1 million or $2 million per year per school in TV money. Instead, this is about long-term survival of the conference as an ongoing entity. (I know that some others disagree and believe that if the Pac-12 makes any less TV money at all per school with expansion compared to staying at 10 schools, then they shouldn't expand. It's a valid point and I'd normally agree, but once again, I think the much bigger picture is more about conference survival. Contrary to common message board beliefs, schools actually don't *want* to dissolve a conference if they don't have to do so even if they're hoping to find a different home long-term.)

So, I don't think it's a choice for the Pac-12 to not expand and, practically speaking, having 11 teams (or any odd number of teams) causes more logistical problems than having 12 teams (or any even number of teams). They aren't insurmountable problems, but when push comes to shove, you'd rather avoid them if there's any legitimate alternative.

IMHO, SDSU is a must have for the Pac-12 based on location. Regardless of whether people think Pac-12 expansion is a good or bad idea, I think there's widespread agreement that if the Pac-12 is going to expand, SDSU is absolutely going to be included.

Therefore, the analysis is who comes with SDSU. I'm still challenged to find a better option than SMU on that front out of the G5 options. If the Pac-12 could get TCU instead, then they'd do that instead... but they can't realistically do that here.

As a result, when you're critiquing SMU so harshly, I'd like to understand who you believe is a better option than SMU. Even from a pure sports standpoint where academics and markets aren't taken into account, I think the only real argument there is Boise State.

Once you add SMU's market and academic standing on top of that, then I'm not seeing a better option. You've pointed to Rice and, as much as respect their academics, you can't seriously believe that Rice is better athletically than SMU.

The critique of SMU's standing in the Dallas market is honestly the weakest one of them all. (This isn't just you - it's a common knock on them from a lot of posters.) Guess what - if you're in the G5, then you're probably not delivering your TV market and/or your TV market isn't important enough to warrant any attention. It doesn't matter if SMU is lower on the totem pole in the Dallas market than UT, A&M and the Big 12 teams. EVERYONE in the G5 that's in a state or market with a P5 team is going to be lower on the totem pole. The Dallas market is still a monster one for TV *and* recruiting and SMU is a respectable academic institution that won't get the undies of Washington/Cal/Stanford in a bunch. (Every analysis about academic snobbery in the Pac-12 should include Washington and not just Cal and Stanford. This is quite important to understand the dynamics of the league.) IMHO, those factors alone make SMU better than any other viable option for the Pac-12 outside of SDSU.

If you don't think the Pac-12 should expand, I might disagree in principle, but I'd at least understand it.

However, I'm just failing to see a viable G5 school that would be paired with SDSU that combines (a) academic acceptability to the Pac-12, (b) a major market and (c ) at least *some* history of athletic pedigree. To me, SMU is the only one that really has all 3 of those factors besides SDSU. Rice has (a) and (b) but not (c ). Boise State and Fresno State have (c ) but not (a) and (b). UNLV has (b) but not (a) and maybe not (c ). We can go on and on, but I ask again, if the Pac-12 *has* expand and we assume SDSU is one of the schools, then who is actually better than SMU that's a *realistic* choice (AKA current G5 school) to pair with them (as opposed to just pointing out the negatives about SMU)?

SMU is also the only Pac expansion candidate.with deep pockets. There is a lot of old Texas money waiting to be spent by their alumni base as soon as a P5 invitation happens.

SMU’s endowment is just under $2B. Rice’s is $7.8B.

Once one determines that the only real plus value of SMU is that they’re in a talent-rich part of Texas, one can see that there’s another athletically subpar university with more money and better academics down the road.

(01-30-2023 02:16 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I disagree with you on A and C.

A) SMU is a categorically different type of school than those of the PAC12. The institutional profile of SMU is still a major negative factor. Not because SMU is bad, but it would be more desirable to have an OK school with the correct institutional profile (like a CSU, or USU, or UNM) than an SMU.

C) SMU’s athletic pedigree is the school that got the death penalty. Nobody cares that it was included in UT’s fiefdom as part of the SWC. It got dropped by the WAC and passed up by the NewBXII. That doesn’t carry any cache. Or it still carries some stink. Take your pick.

SMU was never dropped by the WAC.

What is true is that the three SWC schools in the WAC (TCU, SMU and Rice) were apparently considered so low value that just three years after the SWC collapse, all three of them were left behind in the WAC when the MWC split off.




TCU of course managed to constantly upgrade its conference affiliations under Gary Patterson, from C-USA to the MWC to the Big East to the Big 12.


I do agree with you that recruits today are unlikely to care about SMU’s former SWC membership. I’m 29 and thus was actually alive (albeit only two years old) when the SWC played its last season, and I suspect that most men my age (at least outside of Texas and Arkansas) are only vaguely aware of the SWC’s existence. I’m not sure if today’s CFB recruits-or most people under about 25 years old- is even aware of the existence of the SWC.

(01-30-2023 01:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:26 PM)Poster Wrote:  If the PAC really needed content so badly, then why didn’t they expand to 12 with some random low value MWC schools in the 1990s or oughts?


As it was, they basically ended up adding Colorado (a long time major conference team) just to block out Baylor, and then added Utah (one of the top MWC teams) just because they needed a partner for Colorado. It’s not clear the PAC would have added either Colorado or Utah if they had known tge PAC-16 would fall through.

The PAC was already considering the addition of CU and UU as 11/12 before the PAC16 was even a twinkle in Larry Scott’s eye because the revenue of the CCG made it a no-brainer (back when 12 were required to have a CCG). If the waiver for a CCG with 10 had existed in 2010, I’m not sure the PAC would have gone for CU/UU. The CCG revenue was clearly the impetus to consider expansion.

The talk about adding Colorado and Utah was probably just a ploy to destabilize the Big 12 and add Texas. Similar to how the Big 10’s flirtation with Missouri was seemingly just a ploy to destabilize the Big 12 and add Nebraska.

The difference is that since the PAC failed to hit their jackpot, they (basically accidentally) added the teams they were originally talking about adding.

I like how realistically JRJ looks at things. Contrary to what some sports fans imagine, university presidents do not cackle with sadistic malice every time they meet. Doing so could be a very costly indulgence, given the many priorities they must address.

My impression all along has been that PAC schools would prefer to expand the league, if they do, with public universities. But obviously TV numbers will be very persuasive.

Amazon/ESPN split
Less Exposure
Payout Equal to Big12
Adding SDSU

Sounds about right…

(01-30-2023 12:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The need to be seen as a "research powerhouse" might have been required 7 months ago, but that's not the case now because, ultimately, the Pac-12 still needs to make athletic money with expansion here and there aren't any research powerhouses in the West that are going to make them more athletic money.

Every single realistic #12 is going to drive down the per school revenue- without exception.

The only calculus in play is what sort of non-monetary advantages does the school provide that can soften the blow of the revenue hit.

Number 12 is simply NOT a money add and is NOT going to increase the athletic upside of the conference beyond potentially expanding the recruiting footprint.

USF football only is a better candidate than SMU all sports. It’s at least a similar institution with a large alumni base. What’s another 1.5 hrs of flight time? They’re going to be on an island anyway.

(01-30-2023 02:24 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Amazon/ESPN split
Less Exposure
Payout Equal to Big12
Adding SDSU

Sounds about right…

If this guy (who is a known pro-Big 12 Arizona guy) thinks the Pac-12 deal will be solid, that says something.

(01-30-2023 02:22 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 02:16 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I disagree with you on A and C.

A) SMU is a categorically different type of school than those of the PAC12. The institutional profile of SMU is still a major negative factor. Not because SMU is bad, but it would be more desirable to have an OK school with the correct institutional profile (like a CSU, or USU, or UNM) than an SMU.

C) SMU’s athletic pedigree is the school that got the death penalty. Nobody cares that it was included in UT’s fiefdom as part of the SWC. It got dropped by the WAC and passed up by the NewBXII. That doesn’t carry any cache. Or it still carries some stink. Take your pick.

SMU was never dropped by the WAC.

Getting left out of the MWC=Getting dropped by the WAC.

I agree that there is a generational divide in SWC perception. Your age group is completely ambivalent. A little older has a very negative view of the SWC and SMU in particular. A little older than that views the SWC favorably.

(01-30-2023 02:16 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I disagree with you on A and C.

A) SMU is a categorically different type of school than those of the PAC12. The institutional profile of SMU is still a major negative factor. Not because SMU is bad, but it would be more desirable to have an OK school with the correct institutional profile (like a CSU, or USU, or UNM) than an SMU.

Well, I guess we'll just to have to agree to disagree there. I don't think the Washington/Stanford/Cal portion looks at other Cal State schools or schools like USU or UNM as being any closer to their institutional profile than SMU at all. They're ALL "institutional misfits" in the eyes of the Pac-12 or at least what the Pac-12 thought of itself to be up until 7 months ago. So, the question is whether there's an institutional misfit that brings something that the Pac-12 ultimately needs along with not have a totally glaring academic prestige issue, such as SDSU being at least in the academic range of the lower portion of the Pac-12 while bringing its location that the Pac-12 definitely needs. That's probably where our disconnect is here. You're arguing the fact that some other lower-ranked undergrad schools are somehow closer to the Pac-12 institutional profile simply because they're larger research universities, but I just don't see that all. NONE of these schools fit the Pac-12 institutional profile (or at least how it saw its institutional profile up until 7 months ago). That's a given to me here, so I'm looking at it as a "Would you rather have" choice of higher-ranked undergrad school versus a lower-ranked non-AAU/prestige research school. I'm going with the higher-ranked undergrad school on that choice (and once again, this isn't me saying it, but Wilner, too).

Quote:C) SMU’s athletic pedigree is the school that got the death penalty. Nobody cares that it was included in UT’s fiefdom as part of the SWC. It got dropped by the WAC and passed up by the NewBXII. That doesn’t carry any cache. Or it still carries some stink. Take your pick.

I mean, that's one way to look at it. Once again, though, who besides SDSU (a given addition if the Pac-12 expands) or Boise State (unacceptable to the Pac-12 on academic grounds) just one pure sports grounds are you truly thinking has better athletic cache than SMU among the Pac-12's options in the G5? Once again, if you're going to critique SMU, then I want to know who actually delivers the better athletic cache that you're seeking here.

(01-30-2023 02:31 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 12:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The need to be seen as a "research powerhouse" might have been required 7 months ago, but that's not the case now because, ultimately, the Pac-12 still needs to make athletic money with expansion here and there aren't any research powerhouses in the West that are going to make them more athletic money.

Every single realistic #12 is going to drive down the per school revenue- without exception.

The only calculus in play is what sort of non-monetary advantages does the school provide that can soften the blow of the revenue hit.

Number 12 is simply NOT a money add and is NOT going to increase the athletic upside of the conference beyond potentially expanding the recruiting footprint.

USF football only is a better candidate than SMU all sports. It’s at least a similar institution with a large alumni base. What’s another 1.5 hrs of flight time? They’re going to be on an island anyway.

I mean, if you're going to go there in terms of geography along with saying that a school is coming football-only as opposed to all-sports, then that's fine in theory. Personally, I don't find USF to be purely a better sports school than SMU, although I'd grant that USF is at least a little closer to the Pac-12 in institutional profile if that's the basis of your argument.

(01-30-2023 02:22 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:57 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:26 PM)Poster Wrote:  If the PAC really needed content so badly, then why didn’t they expand to 12 with some random low value MWC schools in the 1990s or oughts?


As it was, they basically ended up adding Colorado (a long time major conference team) just to block out Baylor, and then added Utah (one of the top MWC teams) just because they needed a partner for Colorado. It’s not clear the PAC would have added either Colorado or Utah if they had known tge PAC-16 would fall through.

The PAC was already considering the addition of CU and UU as 11/12 before the PAC16 was even a twinkle in Larry Scott’s eye because the revenue of the CCG made it a no-brainer (back when 12 were required to have a CCG). If the waiver for a CCG with 10 had existed in 2010, I’m not sure the PAC would have gone for CU/UU. The CCG revenue was clearly the impetus to consider expansion.

The talk about adding Colorado and Utah was probably just a ploy to destabilize the Big 12 and add Texas. Similar to how the Big 10’s flirtation with Missouri was seemingly just a ploy to destabilize the Big 12 and add Nebraska.

The difference is that since the PAC failed to hit their jackpot, they (basically accidentally) added the teams they were originally talking about adding.

I like how realistically JRJ looks at things. Contrary to what some sports fans imagine, university presidents do not cackle with sadistic malice every time they meet. Doing so could be a very costly indulgence, given the many priorities they must address.

It might be “malicious”, but trying to get teams like Texas or Nebraska into your conference (even through con games) actually is one of the most profitable things a president could do for their university.

(01-30-2023 01:58 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  SMU is academically categorically different from PAC12 schools.

Seriously, one has to not understand academia at all to make that statement.

These are SMU’s self-identified peer universities and the consortium it currently belongs to. Not a PAC school or a PAC-like school on the list.

Cohort Peer Universities

These universities are those defined as operationally comparative.

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
Waco, Texas

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
Bronx, New York

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
Malibu, California

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
Fort Worth, Texas

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
Denver, Colorado

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA
Tulsa, Oklahoma

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY
Villanova, Pennsylvania


G14

The G14 is a consortium of fourteen universities formed by the Provosts of the universities, and supported by the Institutional Research offices through data exchanges and information sharing.

BOSTON COLLEGE
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

BOSTON UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
Waltham, Massachusetts

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Lehigh, Pennsylvania

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
New York, New York

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Boston, Massachusetts

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
Dallas, Texas

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
Syracuse, New York

TUFTS UNIVERSITY
Medford, Massachusetts

TULANE UNIVERSITY
New Orleans, Louisiana

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Coral Gables, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
South Bend, Indiana

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

So SMU is a private university that identifies its peers as other private universities. SMU is focused on undergraduate studies, and lists peers that also focus on undergraduates. Identified peers include a lot of the private, undergrad focused schools the are P5 members (e.g., Notre Dame, Baylor, TCU, Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest, etc.). The academic reputation of SMU, and its self-identified peers, is strong.

The dilemma is that you’re equating academics with research and AAU. Yet SMU doesn’t strive to be research/graduate focused like Stanford, Northwestern, Duke or Vanderbilt. Even the B1G (with Nebraska) and ACC (with Louisville) understood that expansion involves more than just academic fit.