Its become clear that the Pac 12's two most likely expansion candidates are San Diego State and SMU. Who would be the most likely potential third and four expansion candidate if the league chose to do so (to replace Colorado + Arizona or all 4 corners leaving)?

UNLV, Colorado St, Rice.

Nope. Still no football powerhouses.

The MW exit fee is so high, the Pac might soon consider inviting the entire MW just to maintain a critical mass of schools... and have a decent football product. Pro/rel? hehe

(06-04-2023 03:18 PM)Crayton Wrote:  UNLV, Colorado St, Rice.

Nope. Still no football powerhouses.

The MW exit fee is so high, the Pac might soon consider inviting the entire MW just to maintain a critical mass of schools... and have a decent football product. Pro/rel? hehe

CSU only if CU leaves. But they are R1 with a $450M research budget which fits the PAC academically and with good athletics facilities. If they don't get in the PAC then perhaps the B12 would take them.

After SDSU and SMU then I could see these schools being targets but not until 2030:

Kansas
Houston
Tulane
Rice

UNLV would have to work on things athletically to get a look. They've never had much success in football. Nice location, but a lot of options for spending dollars to go to sports events there.

(06-04-2023 03:57 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  CSU only if CU leaves. But they are R1 with a $450M research budget which fits the PAC academically and with good athletics facilities. If they don't get in the PAC then perhaps the B12 would take them.

After SDSU and SMU then I could see these schools being targets but not until 2030:

Kansas
Houston
Tulane
Rice

Kansas is more likely to win a football national championship than leave for the projected 2024 (or any other future) version of the Pac

(06-04-2023 04:07 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 03:57 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  CSU only if CU leaves. But they are R1 with a $450M research budget which fits the PAC academically and with good athletics facilities. If they don't get in the PAC then perhaps the B12 would take them.

After SDSU and SMU then I could see these schools being targets but not until 2030:

Kansas
Houston
Tulane
Rice

Kansas is more likely to win a football national championship than leave for the projected 2024 (or any other future) version of the Pac

They want to be associated with AAU schools. Not a candidate for the B1G. Possibly ACC.

Pac 12 has no viable candidates - a viable candidate is one that increases tv money. If SDSU is added, it is because a team left. SMU has no chance. SDSU & SMU are excellent schools, this is solely about $$ from tv rankings.

(06-04-2023 03:57 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 03:18 PM)Crayton Wrote:  UNLV, Colorado St, Rice.

Nope. Still no football powerhouses.

The MW exit fee is so high, the Pac might soon consider inviting the entire MW just to maintain a critical mass of schools... and have a decent football product. Pro/rel? hehe

CSU only if CU leaves. But they are R1 with a $450M research budget which fits the PAC academically and with good athletics facilities. If they don't get in the PAC then perhaps the B12 would take them.

I took the OP as premised upon Colorado leaving. I left my list unranked, but CSU should be #1 in that scenario. Not sure all that can happen in the next 4 weeks though.

(06-04-2023 04:25 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Pac 12 has no viable candidates - a viable candidate is one that increases tv money. If SDSU is added, it is because a team left. SMU has no chance. SDSU & SMU are excellent schools, this is solely about $$ from tv rankings.

PAC needs 12 for inventory. Both SDSU and SMU would enter at lesser shares, though they might not be the same. The PAC cannot afford to be locked out of all of SoCal and they know the B12 would take SDSU if they don't. Adding SDSU is a defensive move. Going into Texas is more on the offensive and SMU has plenty of money to spend.

(06-04-2023 04:30 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 03:57 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 03:18 PM)Crayton Wrote:  UNLV, Colorado St, Rice.

Nope. Still no football powerhouses.

The MW exit fee is so high, the Pac might soon consider inviting the entire MW just to maintain a critical mass of schools... and have a decent football product. Pro/rel? hehe

CSU only if CU leaves. But they are R1 with a $450M research budget which fits the PAC academically and with good athletics facilities. If they don't get in the PAC then perhaps the B12 would take them.

I took the OP as premised upon Colorado leaving. I left my list unranked, but CSU should be #1 in that scenario. Not sure all that can happen in the next 4 weeks though.

Got it. Yes, the PAC has looked at CSU and that would be in the scenario that CU would leave. Good school, needs better performance on the field and court, but good facilities. I don't see CU leaving though. They like being associated with Stanford and Cal academically and of the remaining 10 PAC schools, 8 are AAU.

(06-04-2023 04:31 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 04:25 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Pac 12 has no viable candidates - a viable candidate is one that increases tv money. If SDSU is added, it is because a team left. SMU has no chance. SDSU & SMU are excellent schools, this is solely about $$ from tv rankings.

PAC needs 12 for inventory. Both SDSU and SMU would enter at lesser shares, though they might not be the same. The PAC cannot afford to be locked out of all of SoCal and they know the B12 would take SDSU if they don't. Adding SDSU is a defensive move. Going into Texas is more on the offensive and SMU has plenty of money to spend.

SDSU doesn't provide access to the LA market & the Pac-12 has made due without the SD market for its entire existence. SD market is a bad sports market - only the Padres - lost the NFL & no NBA or NHL. SD is a huge wealthy city & it only supports 1 major league team? The Pac 12 also doesn't need inventory - the league can't sell the games it has now at a decent price.

The conference is already lost - they just won't admit it. I lived thru the Big East experience - Pac 12 is in the same spot.

I wish SDSU well & am sure the school will eventually find a home if it continues to invest.

This was an odd post.

(06-04-2023 04:25 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Pac 12 has no viable candidates - a viable candidate is one that increases tv money.

OK. Some might talk about cultural fit and recruiting and travel, but let's grant this bare assertion for the moment.

We don't yet know exactly what 'the TV money' is for the present PAC membership. We can only say that an addition has to bring in audiences that wouldn't be there for the ten current members without the addition.

Quote:If SDSU is added, it is because a team left.

Two teams did leave. That's why San Diego State is being discussed.

Quote:SMU has no chance.

But SMU can help the PAC secure media coverage in a new, populous state. That means a bump in 'the TV money' you mentioned.

Quote:SDSU & SMU are excellent schools, this is solely about $$ from tv rankings.

It's certainly not about logic. Ai yi yi.

(06-04-2023 03:14 PM)CFBJunkie Wrote:  Its become clear that the Pac 12's two most likely expansion candidates are San Diego State and SMU. Who would be the most likely potential third and four expansion candidate if the league chose to do so (to replace Colorado + Arizona or all 4 corners leaving)?

Hawaii, for one.

There are also other regional choices.

And as long as they have 8 or 9 fbs members, they could add several AAU BigWest schools from California, to get back to 12.

Rice,Tulane.

(06-04-2023 04:47 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  This was an odd post.

(06-04-2023 04:25 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Pac 12 has no viable candidates - a viable candidate is one that increases tv money.

OK. Some might talk about cultural fit and recruiting and travel, but let's grant this bare assertion for the moment.

We don't yet know exactly what 'the TV money' is for the present PAC membership. We can only say that an addition has to bring in audiences that wouldn't be there for the ten current members without the addition.

Quote:If SDSU is added, it is because a team left.

Two teams did leave. That's why San Diego State is being discussed.

Quote:SMU has no chance.

But SMU can help the PAC secure media coverage in a new, populous state. That means a bump in 'the TV money' you mentioned.

Quote:SDSU & SMU are excellent schools, this is solely about $$ from tv rankings.

It's certainly not about logic. Ai yi yi.

Right. How can someone declare "____ has no chance" when the commissioner is publicly visiting the school with no attempt to hide it.

If the PAC deal ends up being entirely or mostly streaming as some speculate, then markets probably don't matter as much anymore. They need schools that can sell subscriptions in mass. Especially if Apple (or whoever) forces us to buy a "PAC Package" on top of an AppleTV subscription. That might make the private schools less attractive and some of the larger alumni Mountain West, Big West, or WAC schools more attractive.

Trying to piece together pac 12 parallels to the old big East

2011- April-Big East enters early negotiations rejects offer from espn
2022- July-Pac12 enters early negotiations, rejects offer from espn

2011- Sept-Syracuse and Pitt announce they’ll leave the Big East
2022- Sept-Oregon, Washington, Cal openly seek spots in the BIG.

2012- Aug-Big East enters its exclusive window fail agree to a deal.
2023- June-Pac12 still unable to secure a deal.

2012- Nov-Rutgers, Louisville, announce they’ll leave the Big East
2023- May-Arizona, Colorado leave door open to leaving the conference.

2013- Feb-Big East finally signs an offer, 6 times less than original offer
Fill in blanks for pac12

(06-04-2023 04:36 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 04:31 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 04:25 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Pac 12 has no viable candidates - a viable candidate is one that increases tv money. If SDSU is added, it is because a team left. SMU has no chance. SDSU & SMU are excellent schools, this is solely about $$ from tv rankings.

PAC needs 12 for inventory. Both SDSU and SMU would enter at lesser shares, though they might not be the same. The PAC cannot afford to be locked out of all of SoCal and they know the B12 would take SDSU if they don't. Adding SDSU is a defensive move. Going into Texas is more on the offensive and SMU has plenty of money to spend.

SDSU doesn't provide access to the LA market & the Pac-12 has made due without the SD market for its entire existence. SD market is a bad sports market - only the Padres - lost the NFL & no NBA or NHL. SD is a huge wealthy city & it only supports 1 major league team? The Pac 12 also doesn't need inventory - the league can't sell the games it has now at a decent price.

The conference is already lost - they just won't admit it. I lived thru the Big East experience - Pac 12 is in the same spot.

I wish SDSU well & am sure the school will eventually find a home if it continues to invest.

Nope, Pac claimed the SD market via USCLA but SDSU still is the one that owns it. The PAC loses the SD market unless they invite SDSU. You really don't know crap. There are 24 million in SoCal. It's a big place with a lot of recruits. San Diego is the 5th largest county in the US. We also have a lot of SDSU graduates throughout the area, especially up the 15 in Temecula which would identify more with San Diego sports than LA. Still, they end up in the LA DMA.

Lost the NFL? No. The Chargers would have gotten over $900M to stay here without ever reaching into their pocket. But, Spanos wanted to move to LA and that is what he got. He has no following there. We didn't lose the Chargers, we have been stuck with lousy ownership, Spanos and then Gene Klein before that. We did have the NBA. Know the name Donald Sterling? Only owner of a professional sports team (Clippers) in the USA forced to sell his team by the other owners. Padres? They are in the top 5 in attendance over the last 5 or so years. SDSU basketball outdraws every PAC school other than Arizona which has a larger arena. The modern passing game in football was created here under Don Coryell at SDSU. You can look that up if you want and find out that John Madden and Joe Gibbs coached under Coryell at SDSU. This is a very good sports town but you have to show you want to win. If not, there are other things to do. The Spanoses? They went to one Superbowl in 1994 and after demanded the city spend $100M in stadium upgrades with a ticket guarantee that said the city would buy tickets they didn't sell. Guess what, they didn't try to sell them (and Spanos has done the same thing in LA with Kronke). Not great for public relations. The paint on the remodel wasn't even dry and Spanos said they needed a new stadium. Spanos is a laughing stock among the other owners who didn't want him to move the team.

As for LA, how many professional football teams have they lost? Four. They lost the Chargers in 61, the Rams and the Raiders and they were supposed to get the Houston franchise if they just built a stadium. They didn't, so the franchise went to Houston. Kronke came in and built a stadium on his dime for the most part. LA sure as hell didn't do much but gift him land.

The NWSL set two attendance records here at Snapdragon in just their second year playing. 33K for a women's soccer game. Even the National team doesn't draw that for a friendly. We just got a MSL franchise which brings along with it an international youth soccer foundation, "Right to Dream." San Diego will be one of the leaders for soccer in the nation with that affiliation.

I really tire of people that don't know a damned thing about this town trashing it and its sports history. Why don't you try to buy a seat for a Padre game right now, see how much it costs if you can actually get a seat. Funny thing, the Padres have an owner that actually spends money and wants to win and they routinely sell out. And, they don't even have a winning record right now.

The PAC isn't dying. Only way that happens is if the B1G takes at least two more teams. That won't happen, if it even does, until 2030.

Oh yeah, San Diego is rather wealthy. However, it is also expensive. I live in a 1650 sf duplex which is worth over a million dollars. That means it also costs over a million dollars. You look to live in Cincy, betcha that million bucks buys you a bigger house there. Of course, your weather sucks while I live in the nicest climate in the world. So yeah, wealthy city but everything here costs more as well. Try not to be so stupid.

Under that scenario:
SDSU
SMU
Memphis
Tulane

Other options: AFA, Fresno St., Boise St., Colorado St., Rice, UTSA, UNLV

One of the Jon/Johns (I forget if it was Wilner or Canzano) wrote an article explicitly stating #13 and #14 are Tulane and Rice. Whichever one of them does the "Mailbag" articles reported it in there.

In the same article, it's stated that the Pac-12 is extremely unlikely to go above 12.

Do people really still think there’s going to be a PAC, once the dominoes start to fall? I think it’s much more likely that the two remaining schools that no one wants, Oregon State, and Washington state just get absorbed into the MWC.