(08-11-2023 01:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  PAC 4 will have all the schools saying no to join. Not with California and Stanford eying Big 10.

Adding schools like Rice, Texas State, Tulsa, ECU, Temple, Charlotte etc, would make their conference terrible and be maybe the 8th best conference. PAC 4 don't have the power to even grab G5 schools now. They have been neutered to a point that they have to either merged with the MWC or with the AAC. Just tell Stanford and California ask the AAC for the invite and let Washington State and Oregon State that the PAC to merge with the MWC and take all the credits, and make the PAC Mountain as the new rebrand.

This is the best solution. That means it won't happen.

(08-11-2023 01:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I don’t buy it. Between AFA (academics) and CSU (high budget, academically passable), there’s no way they’re passing on the state of Colorado completely.

I agree, especially with CSU.

My new Pac-12 would look like this:

East
USF
Memphis
Tulane
SMU
Rice
CSU

West
Cal
Stanford
Oregon State
Washington State
SDSU
UNLV

The Pac-12 could add the five AAC schools for 2024 and play at nine schools, then add the three MWC schools for 2025 when they would expand to 12 and breakout into two 6-team divisions.

(08-11-2023 01:12 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  That would be smart. That would mean they are looking at 5 aac teams for the other division.

That would make the most money at the same time keeping the academics high.

The only AAC schools that'd be considered under this criteria are SMU, Rice, and Tulane... maybe Tulsa for 8? Maybe Navy... is that bad? No, but who's paying the exit fees? And who exactly is the brand power there, aside from Navy who'd be least likely to join?

I dont think thats a consideration for schools like SMU, Rice, Tulane, and Tulsa. No offense intended to any school---but if those schools have a choice between being in a conference with N Texas and UTSA or being in a league with elite schools like Cal and Stanford---they are going to pay the money to be with Cal and Stanford. It sounds like the Pac4 could be angling for a western version of the "Magnolia League" (or as close as one could reasonable get given the situation). I still think they would be wise to nab Air Force and Boise---but as I suggested in the past---these schools have always valued academic snobbery over athletic performance in conference matters. I believe Air Force makes the grade academically---I suspect there may be some differences on a cultural--or perhaps even political--level that may keep Air Force off the Pac4's short list.

(08-11-2023 01:30 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It wouldn’t shock me at all. As I’ve said elsewhere, if Stanford and Cal didn’t like the academics of the Big 12, there’s no way they’d like the academics of the MWC.

Think of adding the following:

SDSU
SMU
Rice
Tulane
USF
UConn (FB-only)
Gonzaga (non-FB)

No network is paying for this nonsense... UConn FB only? If this is Luck's thinking, they are all screwed. I can't believe they are still in this mentality. In fact, they probably aren't, and just hired Luck to tell them what they want to hear before listening to more pragmatic offers. It's dead. I too thought they'd get B1G invites as well, perhaps at permanent partial shares, but the fact they didn't really tells you all you need to know. We were some of the few posters here overrating Stanford/Cal's prospects.

I believe there is a path to a national Magnolia League of sorts, but we are years away from that. We haven't gone hard enough in the semi-professional direction for the pendulum to swing hard enough in the other direction that such a league becomes possible again.

Bye bye PAC 4. Make your conference worst in the money sports if you grab all the academics schools that have not won anything in the money sports. I am wondering who is spearheading this move? It is not California, Washington State and Oregon. I think Stanford is trying to do this to kill any chances with any mergers with MWC who is much stronger than them now in both money sports. I think GK also put out this lie so that he can keep his job as the new PAC 12 conference.

(08-11-2023 01:38 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I don’t buy it. Between AFA (academics) and CSU (high budget, academically passable), there’s no way they’re passing on the state of Colorado completely.

I agree, especially with CSU.

My new Pac-12 would look like this:

East
USF
Memphis
Tulane
SMU
Rice
CSU

West
Cal
Stanford
Oregon State
Washington State
SDSU
UNLV

The Pac-12 could add the five AAC schools for 2024 and play at nine schools, then add the three MWC schools for 2025 when they would expand to 12 and breakout into two 6-team divisions.

Don't forget Wichita and Gonzaga for hoops.

(08-11-2023 01:40 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:38 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I don’t buy it. Between AFA (academics) and CSU (high budget, academically passable), there’s no way they’re passing on the state of Colorado completely.

I agree, especially with CSU.

My new Pac-12 would look like this:

East
USF
Memphis
Tulane
SMU
Rice
CSU

West
Cal
Stanford
Oregon State
Washington State
SDSU
UNLV

The Pac-12 could add the five AAC schools for 2024 and play at nine schools, then add the three MWC schools for 2025 when they would expand to 12 and breakout into two 6-team divisions.

Don't forget Wichita and Gonzaga for hoops.

No doubt.

(08-11-2023 01:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:20 PM)PredatorUTEP Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I don’t buy it. Between AFA (academics) and CSU (high budget, academically passable), there’s no way they’re passing on the state of Colorado completely.

Agreed. They should be considering all of the military academies to build a good viewership base.

I’ve been thinking about that a lot since the football brands are solid and they have elite academic standards.

To the extent that there’s a hang-up: basketball and non-revenue sports. The service academies provide a lot as football-only members (and maybe that’s an option here), but it’s not the same for all-sports.

Once again, Stanford and Cal don’t look at their non-revenue sports as merely Title IX compliance niceties. They legitimately seek to produce Olympians in their Olympic sports, so they still need to compete against top level competition.

I don't think that 10 team conference accomplishes that. I'm not sure any available option except an invitation to the Big Ten accomplishes that.

(08-11-2023 01:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  PAC 4 will have all the schools saying no to join. Not with California and Stanford eying Big 10.

Adding schools like Rice, Texas State, Tulsa, ECU, Temple, Charlotte etc, would make their conference terrible and be maybe the 8th best conference. PAC 4 don't have the power to even grab G5 schools now. They have been neutered to a point that they have to either merged with the MWC or with the AAC. Just tell Stanford and California ask the AAC for the invite and let Washington State and Oregon State that the PAC to merge with the MWC and take all the credits, and make the PAC Mountain as the new rebrand.

This is the best solution. That means it won't happen.

It seems that Oregon State and Washington State is on board of merging with the MWC. I think they want California and Stanford gone and they have all the rights to the PAC 12 credits and name, merge with the MWC and rebrand the conference. Oregon State and Washington State will vote no on adding the AAC schools, and maybe California does as well. It does seem that three of the four may accept Boise State and Fresno State as members, because they have the strength that would help the PAC 4 out more. This is survival mode right now, and you will not survive with adding AAC schools which most of them have terrible sports.

(08-11-2023 01:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I don’t buy it. Between AFA (academics) and CSU (high budget, academically passable), there’s no way they’re passing on the state of Colorado completely.

AFA might go for it since its not too strong.

Might as well throw in Navy while we are at it.

PAC 4 should ask MWC to vote out San Jose State to merge, rebrand the conference, fire GK and put Gloria in place, let her handle the legal issues since she have a degree in law school at UC-Berkley, then talk about a pay raise for temp for the new teams, until 2026 where they can renewal their contract, and then target schools like UTSA, Memphis, SMU, Tulane, UAB, Georgia State and USF and then go get St. Mary's, Gonzaga, Wichita State, and maybe Belmont/Lipscomb, VCU or College of Charleston for basketball.

(08-11-2023 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It wouldn’t shock me at all. As I’ve said elsewhere, if Stanford and Cal didn’t like the academics of the Big 12, there’s no way they’d like the academics of the MWC.

Think of adding the following:

SDSU
SMU
Rice
Tulane
USF
UConn (FB-only)
Gonzaga (non-FB)

That would put the league at 10 teams each for both football and basketball, all schools with high academic standards, and somewhat reasonable East/West pods for non-revenue sports. Even if Stanford and Cal eventually leave, this league could still backfill with the “best of the rest” from the G5. Gonzaga brings in a big brand for basketball, so this would be a league solidly in the top 6 for that sport. They also preserve their own conference bid for the CFP and NCAA Tournament, both of which have value in and of itself.

Then Stanford and Cal need to go independent or join the Ivy League because no network is going to offer any decent tv $$ for that. Cal and Stanford are so out of touch with reality on the landscape of collegiate sports and how it’s all driven by football brands and eyeballs.

(08-11-2023 01:30 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It wouldn’t shock me at all. As I’ve said elsewhere, if Stanford and Cal didn’t like the academics of the Big 12, there’s no way they’d like the academics of the MWC.

Think of adding the following:

SDSU
SMU
Rice
Tulane
USF
UConn (FB-only)
Gonzaga (non-FB)

No network is paying for this nonsense... UConn FB only? If this is Luck's thinking, they are all screwed. I can't believe they are still in this mentality. In fact, they probably aren't, and just hired Luck to tell them what they want to hear before listening to more pragmatic offers. It's dead. I too thought they'd get B1G invites as well, perhaps at permanent partial shares, but the fact they didn't really tells you all you need to know. We were some of the few posters here overrating Stanford/Cal's prospects.

I believe there is a path to a national Magnolia League of sorts, but we are years away from that. We haven't gone hard enough in the semi-professional direction for the pendulum to swing hard enough in the other direction that such a league becomes possible again.

Well, yes, you might be right on that front, but it’s less about comparing this to a Big Ten/ACC invite and more about this option compared to the MWC, AAC or independence for Stanford and Cal.

Let’s put it this way: if Stanford and Cal are going to no longer consider academics for conference-mates in search of more TV money, then they should just join the Big 12 and forget about rebuilding the Pac-4 entirely. At least the new Big 12 has 4 of their old conference mates that also happen to be AAU members along with a 5th one in Kansas while actually paying out a good amount of TV money. To me, the main reason for Stanford and Cal to stick around and rebuild the Pac-4 compared to going to the Big 12 or going independent is to create a conference in whatever image that they deem to be desirable. Is it elitism again? Yes, but we’ve seen how powerful of a force that can be at those two particular schools.

(08-11-2023 01:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Well, yes, you might be right on that front, but it’s less about comparing this to a Big Ten/ACC invite and more about this option compared to the MWC, AAC or independence for Stanford and Cal.

Let’s put it this way: if Stanford and Cal are going to no longer consider academics for conference-mates in search of more TV money, then they should just join the Big 12 and forget about rebuilding the Pac-4 entirely. At least the new Big 12 has 4 of their old conference mates that also happen to be AAU members along with a 5th one in Kansas while actually paying out a good amount of TV money. To me, the main reason for Stanford and Cal to stick around and rebuild the Pac-4 compared to going to the Big 12 or going independent is to create a conference in whatever image that they deem to be desirable. Is it elitism again? Yes, but we’ve seen how powerful of a force that can be at those two particular schools.

I'm convinced that ship has sailed, especially because they just absorbed four of their old conference mates.

(08-11-2023 01:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:30 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It wouldn’t shock me at all. As I’ve said elsewhere, if Stanford and Cal didn’t like the academics of the Big 12, there’s no way they’d like the academics of the MWC.

Think of adding the following:

SDSU
SMU
Rice
Tulane
USF
UConn (FB-only)
Gonzaga (non-FB)

No network is paying for this nonsense... UConn FB only? If this is Luck's thinking, they are all screwed. I can't believe they are still in this mentality. In fact, they probably aren't, and just hired Luck to tell them what they want to hear before listening to more pragmatic offers. It's dead. I too thought they'd get B1G invites as well, perhaps at permanent partial shares, but the fact they didn't really tells you all you need to know. We were some of the few posters here overrating Stanford/Cal's prospects.

I believe there is a path to a national Magnolia League of sorts, but we are years away from that. We haven't gone hard enough in the semi-professional direction for the pendulum to swing hard enough in the other direction that such a league becomes possible again.

Bye bye PAC 4. Make your conference worst in the money sports if you grab all the academics schools that have not won anything in the money sports. I am wondering who is spearheading this move? It is not California, Washington State and Oregon. I think Stanford is trying to do this to kill any chances with any mergers with MWC who is much stronger than them now in both money sports. I think GK also put out this lie so that he can keep his job as the new PAC 12 conference.

David---its just this simple. They value academics over athletic performance. I thought they would at least throw in a token "high performance" team (like Boise) just to juice the conference value---but maybe not. Once they get 8 teams together---perhaps they may tweak the final product to improve the networks interest.

(08-11-2023 01:49 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Well, yes, you might be right on that front, but it’s less about comparing this to a Big Ten/ACC invite and more about this option compared to the MWC, AAC or independence for Stanford and Cal.

Let’s put it this way: if Stanford and Cal are going to no longer consider academics for conference-mates in search of more TV money, then they should just join the Big 12 and forget about rebuilding the Pac-4 entirely. At least the new Big 12 has 4 of their old conference mates that also happen to be AAU members along with a 5th one in Kansas while actually paying out a good amount of TV money. To me, the main reason for Stanford and Cal to stick around and rebuild the Pac-4 compared to going to the Big 12 or going independent is to create a conference in whatever image that they deem to be desirable. Is it elitism again? Yes, but we’ve seen how powerful of a force that can be at those two particular schools.

I'm convinced that ship has sailed, especially because they just absorbed four of their old conference mates.

The Big XII is not option until TV says it is. They aren't going to turn Stanford/Cal away if TV matches the money.

My understanding is that the Big 12 was never interested in Stanford and Cal. But I could be wrong about that.

(08-11-2023 01:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:30 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It wouldn’t shock me at all. As I’ve said elsewhere, if Stanford and Cal didn’t like the academics of the Big 12, there’s no way they’d like the academics of the MWC.

Think of adding the following:

SDSU
SMU
Rice
Tulane
USF
UConn (FB-only)
Gonzaga (non-FB)

No network is paying for this nonsense... UConn FB only? If this is Luck's thinking, they are all screwed. I can't believe they are still in this mentality. In fact, they probably aren't, and just hired Luck to tell them what they want to hear before listening to more pragmatic offers. It's dead. I too thought they'd get B1G invites as well, perhaps at permanent partial shares, but the fact they didn't really tells you all you need to know. We were some of the few posters here overrating Stanford/Cal's prospects.

I believe there is a path to a national Magnolia League of sorts, but we are years away from that. We haven't gone hard enough in the semi-professional direction for the pendulum to swing hard enough in the other direction that such a league becomes possible again.

Bye bye PAC 4. Make your conference worst in the money sports if you grab all the academics schools that have not won anything in the money sports. I am wondering who is spearheading this move? It is not California, Washington State and Oregon. I think Stanford is trying to do this to kill any chances with any mergers with MWC who is much stronger than them now in both money sports. I think GK also put out this lie so that he can keep his job as the new PAC 12 conference.

David---its just this simple. They value academics over athletic performance. I thought they would at least throw in a token "high performance" team (like Boise) just to juice the conference value---but maybe not. Once they get 8 teams together---perhaps they may tweak the final product to improve the networks interest.

Frankly I could see Wazzu and Oregon State refusing to join this nonsense of a Conference due to the lack of $$ it would generate.

(08-11-2023 01:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  David---its just this simple. They value academics over athletic performance. I thought they would at least throw in a token "high performance" team (like Boise) just to juice the conference value---but maybe not. Once they get 8 teams together---perhaps they may tweak the final product to improve the networks interest.

Academics won't get them very far if they want a seat at the big boy table. Market trumps all and academics are the icing on the cake, but you still have to win games.

LOL so a league of
Stanford
Cal
WSU
OSU
SDSU
SMU
Rice
Tulane

The 3 AAC privates can cut the checks and enjoy Apple+.

Hell if you are going with a league that bad and academics is all that matters why slum it with SDSU and their USNWR 151 ranking?

(08-11-2023 01:53 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  My understanding is that the Big 12 was never interested in Stanford and Cal. But I could be wrong about that.

I don’t think that was the case.

Instead, Stanford and Cal had been making it clear that they weren’t interested in the Big 12. The Big 12 proclamations that expansion was over was sort of, “We’re rejecting you before you reject us” position.

Now, would the Big 12 play hardball and make them come in with reduced shares? I could certainly see that here. However, I don’t think reluctance to join the Big 12 initially or looking at them as a last resort would be held against them - see ASU’s leadership all but bemoaning the downfall of the Pac-12 and ripping on trips to Morgantown.

If anything, I could see Brett Yormark getting Stanford and Cal to join the Big 12 as his “I can walk on water” move to any of the league’s university presidents.