(08-11-2023 01:54 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

(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.

Nothing they can do will net the Pac4 rebuild Big10/SEC/ACC/Big12 dollars. The point is to create a home they can live with that produces as much or more revenue than going to the MW or AAC. I think they can accomplish that fairly easily. This is what I have been suggesting.

Stanford
Cal
OSU
WSU
Rice
SMU
Tulsa
SDSU
Air Force
Boise

Plus---Gonzaga as a non-football addition

Every school except Boise is an academically elite institution. The footprint is big--but not horrific. Ive only added one school simply for its athletic performance and TV value. The rest are academically top tier schools. I think this conference probably can net the schools something around 10 million each in TV money. It looks like they could be angling for something similar to what Ive mapped out.

(08-11-2023 01:53 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(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.

Therein lies the rub. No way ESPN is going to pay for those programs to join the B12 when they don't carry nearly the same value as the teams already chosen. If anything, I see ESPN maneuvering to get them at fire sale prices.

(08-11-2023 02:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:54 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

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

(08-11-2023 01:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

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

Nothing they can do will net the Pac4 rebuild Big10/SEC/ACC/Big12 dollars. The point is to create a home they can live with that produces as much or more revenue than going to the MW or AAC. I think they can accomplish that fairly easily. This is what I have been suggesting.

Stanford
Cal
OSU
WSU
Rice
SMU
Tulsa
SDSU
Air Force
Boise

Plus---Gonzaga as a non-football addition

Every school except Boise is an academically elite institution. The footprint is big--but not horrific. Ive only added one school simply for its athletic performance and TV value. The rest are academically top tier schools. I think this conference probably can net the schools something around 10 million each in TV money. It looks like they could be angling for something similar to what Ive mapped out.

$10M for that conference feels wildly optimistic.

(08-11-2023 02:04 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  This likely wouldn’t work because no media partner will pay any significant money for it. This would essentially be a G5 level athletic conference primarily consisting of private schools west of the Mississippi with little national following or fan base. The would be lucky to receive $10m per year at best.

Thats exactly what I think they will make---and thats more than they get in the MW (4 million per team) and more than they would get in the AAC (7 million per team). No matter who they add, there is really no path back to P5 for the Pac4---but that doesnt mean there aren't some paths forward that are better than others. To them, membership in a conference of academic peers is the main goal---and everything else appears to be a secondary concern.

(08-11-2023 02:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

I hope not, Utah just got away from what I view were some if the biggest Cancers in the Conference and I don't want them. Take OSU and Wazzu if you're taking more from the PAC.

(08-11-2023 02:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:04 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  This likely wouldn’t work because no media partner will pay any significant money for it. This would essentially be a G5 level athletic conference primarily consisting of private schools west of the Mississippi with little national following or fan base. The would be lucky to receive $10m per year at best.

Thats exactly what I think they will make---and thats more than they get in the MW (4 million per team) and more than they would get in the AAC (7 million per team). There is no path back to P5 for the Pac4---but that doesnt mean there aren't some paths forward that are better than others.

Rumors imply that ESPN is willing to work with the AAC if they want to bring in the PAC4. If anything, I could see the PAC4+AAC easily hitting that $10M target.

(08-11-2023 02:06 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:53 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(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.

Therein lies the rub. No way ESPN is going to pay for those programs to join the B12 when they don't carry nearly the same value as the teams already chosen. If anything, I see ESPN maneuvering to get them at fire sale prices.

That argument may apply to Cal, but Stanford had consistently drawn better football TV ratings than any of the Four Corners schools (and even Washington and UCLA) over the past 10 years. That’s actually what makes everything that much more perplexing. I know everyone wants to rip on Stanford’s fan base, but when it comes to what matters in realignment - TV ratings - they were near the top of the Pac-12. Putting aside all academic arguments, Stanford actually *did* deliver on the media metrics at least compared to anyone other than USC or Oregon.

(08-11-2023 01:47 PM)Frank the Tank 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.

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 agree this is all about an alternative to independence for Cal and Stanford. That's the problem. It requires that all the others would have to be willing to do what's in Stanford's and Cal's best interest instead of their own. It's all about bailing those two out. At this point, realignment decisions are about self interest, not rescuing two schools who played their hand badly.

(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.

UConn finding a spot FB only in this isn't something I've condisdered.

So the PAC-4 really only needs 4 AAC schools for 24' plus UConn FB to fill out an 8 game FB schedule.

24' (SMU, Memphis, Tulane, USF, UConn FB)
25' (SDSU, CSU)

I would bite the bullet on Memphis because they have significant FB and BB.

I also think the PAC should go with SDSU and one other out west for travel purposes so you can split it into two divisions.

FB
West (Cal, Stan, WSU, OSU, SDSU, CSU)
East (SMU, Memphis, Tulane, USF, UConn)

BB
West (Cal, Stan, WSU, OSU, SDSU, Gonzaga)
East (CSU, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, USF)

Colorado St flips east for basketball.

It could be a 8-10 mil per school conference.

I'm starting to get why everyone ditched Stanford and Cal LOL.

(08-11-2023 02:07 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:54 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

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

(08-11-2023 01:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  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.

Nothing they can do will net the Pac4 rebuild Big10/SEC/ACC/Big12 dollars. The point is to create a home they can live with that produces as much or more revenue than going to the MW or AAC. I think they can accomplish that fairly easily. This is what I have been suggesting.

Stanford
Cal
OSU
WSU
Rice
SMU
Tulsa
SDSU
Air Force
Boise

Plus---Gonzaga as a non-football addition

Every school except Boise is an academically elite institution. The footprint is big--but not horrific. Ive only added one school simply for its athletic performance and TV value. The rest are academically top tier schools. I think this conference probably can net the schools something around 10 million each in TV money. It looks like they could be angling for something similar to what Ive mapped out.

$10M for that conference feels wildly optimistic.

The top G5 conference currently gets 7 million per team. That conference currently has just ONE school that has ever been an AQ or P5 team during its existence. The Pac4 has 4 schools that are current P5 members---and is looking to add two more schools that were both seriously vetted by 2 or more P5 conferences (SDSU and SMU). Thats a pretty solid start toward a 10 million a team non-power conference.

(08-11-2023 01:19 PM)PredatorUTEP Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:15 PM)Claw Wrote:  All that does is kill another conference.

Trickle down effect leads to CUSA, which means more FCS call ups

Honestly, that was always the most likely outcome, to me.

(08-11-2023 02:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:54 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

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

(08-11-2023 01:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

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

Nothing they can do will net the Pac4 rebuild Big10/SEC/ACC/Big12 dollars. The point is to create a home they can live with that produces as much or more revenue than going to the MW or AAC. I think they can accomplish that fairly easily. This is what I have been suggesting.

Stanford
Cal
OSU
WSU
Rice
SMU
Tulsa
SDSU
Air Force
Boise

Plus---Gonzaga as a non-football addition

Every school except Boise is an academically elite institution. The footprint is big--but not horrific. Ive only added one school simply for its athletic performance and TV value. The rest are academically top tier schools. I think this conference probably can net the schools something around 10 million each in TV money. It looks like they could be angling for something similar to what Ive mapped out.

Rice no. Their money sports sucks, and will get you less value. UTSA on the other hand is a school on the rise in academics, and it is ahead of Oregon on spending on research and all that. With the talks of UT med school in San Antonio merging with UTSA would be a school that PAC 4 would be more interested in with the football winning now.

No to Tulsa. You don't reward the smallest student enrollment in a P5 conference. They don't have the goods to join.

Fresno State, North Texas, Memphis, UAB are winning football games.

(08-11-2023 02:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That argument may apply to Cal, but Stanford had consistently drawn better football TV ratings than any of the Four Corners schools (and even Washington and UCLA) over the past 10 years. That’s actually what makes everything that much more perplexing. I know everyone wants to rip on Stanford’s fan base, but when it comes to what matters in realignment - TV ratings - they were near the top of the Pac-12. Putting aside all academic arguments, Stanford actually *did* deliver on the media metrics at least compared to anyone other than USC or Oregon.

Those ratings were all pre-NIL. Stanford has yet to adjust. Stanford does not deliver these media metrics going forward, hence the shaft from the B1G sans ND as a partner.

This is a much smarter approach. This the Pac-4 has lost a lot of rivalries and traditions over the past few weeks but there’s a lot of money, infrastructure, and branding left behind.

(08-11-2023 01:15 PM)Claw Wrote:  All that does is kill another conference.

Just backfill with more CUSA schools. Problem solved.

(08-11-2023 02:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That argument may apply to Cal, but Stanford had consistently drawn better football TV ratings than any of the Four Corners schools (and even Washington and UCLA) over the past 10 years. That’s actually what makes everything that much more perplexing. I know everyone wants to rip on Stanford’s fan base, but when it comes to what matters in realignment - TV ratings - they were near the top of the Pac-12. Putting aside all academic arguments, Stanford actually *did* deliver on the media metrics at least compared to anyone other than USC or Oregon.

You make a good point, but back to back 3-9 seasons won't do much to retain the momentum, and basketball has fallen off a cliff too. When they're unable to deliver competent programs in the two revenue sports, I can't see them maintaining such high ratings.

(08-11-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:47 PM)Frank the Tank 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.

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 agree this is all about an alternative to independence for Cal and Stanford. That's the problem. It requires that all the others would have to be willing to do what's in Stanford's and Cal's best interest instead of their own. It's all about bailing those two out. At this point, realignment decisions are about self interest, not rescuing two schools who played their hand badly.

Great points. I’m sure WSU and OSU are weary of this complex with Stanford and Cal.

(08-11-2023 02:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5 conference currently gets 7 million per team. That conference currently has just ONE school that has ever been an AQ or P5 team during its existence. The Pac4 has 4 schools that are current P5 members---and is looking to add two more schools that were both seriously vetted by 2 or more P5 conferences (SDSU and SMU). Thats a pretty solid start toward a 10 million a team non-power conference.

If they were "power" conference material, they wouldn't be the odd men out. Something to consider wouldn't you say?

(08-11-2023 02:16 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 02:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 01:54 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

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

(08-11-2023 01:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  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.

Nothing they can do will net the Pac4 rebuild Big10/SEC/ACC/Big12 dollars. The point is to create a home they can live with that produces as much or more revenue than going to the MW or AAC. I think they can accomplish that fairly easily. This is what I have been suggesting.

Stanford
Cal
OSU
WSU
Rice
SMU
Tulsa
SDSU
Air Force
Boise

Plus---Gonzaga as a non-football addition

Every school except Boise is an academically elite institution. The footprint is big--but not horrific. Ive only added one school simply for its athletic performance and TV value. The rest are academically top tier schools. I think this conference probably can net the schools something around 10 million each in TV money. It looks like they could be angling for something similar to what Ive mapped out.

Rice no. Their money sports sucks, and will get you less value. UTSA on the other hand is a school on the rise in academics, and it is ahead of Oregon on spending on research and all that. With the talks of UT med school in San Antonio merging with UTSA would be a school that PAC 4 would be more interested in with the football winning now.

No to Tulsa. You don't reward the smallest student enrollment in a P5 conference. They don't have the goods to join.

Fresno State, North Texas, Memphis, UAB are winning football games.

David---your not listening. Those schools are not ever going to show up on the Pac4 rebuild radar.